Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 29, 2022 - Depositions & Trials

04:56:07

Alex Jones Defamation Trial Sandy Hook 'Hoax' Lawsuit - Day Two

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All rise.
	For tonight, this report is now in session.
	The Honorable Judge Maya Garrett-Gambold presiding.
	Good morning, everyone.
	Good morning, everybody.
	We have this movie's right here to come.
	Deputy, will you just remember when we're bringing the jury out and back and we want somebody in the hallway?
	Thank you.
	All right, you may be seated.
	We've seen this.
	She's come after security, Your Honor.
	She had trouble with the parking meter.
	meter.
	I should be here in a moment there and I'll go on the hall.
	Alright.
	Well, let's The judge who used to sit in this courtroom before me was famous for giving little I don't have any historical backs.
	But I can talk a little bit about the courthouse, because this courthouse is really near and near to my heart.
	It is named after Heman Sweat, who was the African-American who had to sue and go all the way to the Supreme Court to be able to attend the University of Texas Law School.
	So we're proud to have that name on our building.
	It is over 90 years old, which is why next year we are moving to a new courthouse about four blocks down the street.
	During COVID, a lot of courthouses around the state have been able to open fully sooner than we.
	Well, we're still not fully open.
	We're only doing jury trials in person because they have more up-to-date equipment.
	But for example, this courthouse was built, and I don't know for sure, it was either four courtrooms or six for the whole building.
	That's a jail on the sixth floor.
	Well, we have one, two, three, five courtrooms on this floor alone.
	So as you can imagine, to get there, we've had to do a lot of questionable construction over the years.
	So there are no paintings or anything on that wall, because when it rains, There's an opening above us that cannot be closed.
	And it just comes down and ruins the wall.
	So we don't put any artwork or any important portraits over there.
	My old courtroom, which is the smallest courtroom in the building, used to be a viewing gallery for the courtroom below.
	So that one is also uniquely shaped.
	actually you know that's the courtroom you're delivering or you're hanging out in.
	So anyway.
	That's my, those are my facts.
	My history lesson about the Fort House.
	My dad is an artist, so most of these paintings are by him.
	Not all of them.
	Three are by other people.
	No?
	I still don't have a witness.
	Oh, is that...
	I saw Mr. Reynold in the hallway.
	He said she couldn't park or something.
	I'm not sure.
	Well, it's good, because this wasn't working.
	Oh, okay.
	You two missed my lesson about the courthouse.
	I have a daily calendar, but it's the far side.
	It is not history, so there's no educational lesson.
	Maybe that's how we did it, actually.
	I doubt it.
	He's brilliant and probably just knows a historical fact about Texas for every day.
	Well, I apologize for my jury.
	I thought we were ready.
	I had sent my staff to ask and was not informed that we weren't ready.
	So I'm sorry that you are brought out here to leave.
	I am counting this time.
	Thank you.
	It's just like a wasted opportunity.
	Judges don't get to talk very much and they were all lawyers before they were judges and like a whole room of people and I can't do anything to say.
	Oh, well.
	I guess we'll wait about three more minutes, and then I'll send the jury back so that they can relax if she is not here by then.
	I'm going to go to the next one.
	Do you have another witness you would want to start with?
	I don't believe they have been here.
	All right.
	Well, she is almost 13 minutes late.
	I think I'm going to let the jury go back where they can relax, and I'm going to work on other pieces.
	So we'll be back in a little bit.
	Thank you.
	We've already talked about it.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	100%.
	All rise.
	Fourth thing you can have, Mr. Cord is now in session.
	Back in session.
	Thank you.
	All right, you may be seated.
	Thank you.
	Ms. Karpova, you're still under oath.
	We're going to just pick up right where we left off yesterday, all right?
	Same instructions as before.
	And whenever you're ready.
	Thank you.
	Ms. Karpova, before we get started, I have the exhibits up here from yesterday.
	And I'm going to put Exhibit 31 back in front of you.
	It's the list of all the videos.
	You remember that?
	Yes.
	All right, Ms. Carpova, I kind of want to recap where we're at.
	So I want to remember from on the jury.
	Yesterday we talked about some videos.
	We started talking about them, right?
	Yes.
	And you remember the first one of those was on the day of Sandy Hook.
	You remember that?
	Yes.
	And that video on December 14, 2012, was called Connecticut School Massacre.
	Looks like false flags as witnesses, correct?
	Correct.
	We also looked at a video That was done five days after Sandy Hook, on December 17th, 2012. Do you remember that?
	Yes.
	And that video was called, Creepy Illuminati Message and Batman Movie, Hints at Sandy Hook School.
	That's right?
	Correct.
	Then we also looked at another video that was just a couple days later, seven days after the shooting, and that one was entitled, Sandy Hook Second Shooter Cover-Up.
	Yes, sir.
	And then we talked about another video that was two days after that, on December 21st, 2012, and that was entitled, Lower Part of Gotham Renamed Sandy Hook in Dark Knight Film.
	Yes, correct.
	And then we talked about how on January 10th, as we turn the new year, there was a video entitled, Professor Claims Sandy Hook Massacre MSM Misinformation.
	Correct.
	On January 15th, 2013, five days later, InfoWars published a video entitled, Sandy Hook AR-15 Hoax?
	Still no school surveillance footage, correct?
	Yes.
	And then we talked about a video a couple weeks later, on January 27th, 2013, and that one was entitled, Why People Think Sandy Hook is a Hoax.
	And then, at the end of the day, we talked about an email with one of the parents.
	Do you remember that?
	Yes.
	It was an email in which one of the parents was asking InfoWars to please knock it off with the crisis actor and false flag terror stuff on their coverage.
	Do you remember that?
	Remember, it was sent to the writer's desk.
	Okay.
	And in fact, it was replied to, wasn't it?
	Yes.
	And then what the reply was is that InfoWars had an editor claiming they were actively distancing themselves from the actor's thing.
	Hmm.
	Thank you.
	Well, the point on that, I think Paul Joseph Watson, I'm not sure if he was speaking exactly for Alex Jones himself.
	He might have been speaking for himself and other employees at InfoWars, but as to Alex Jones, I'm not sure if he was speaking for him.
	Well, that would make sense, wouldn't it?
	Because you also testified yesterday that Envors did not distance itself from the actors then, correct?
	Alex Jones did mention he continued to wonder and search for the truth from the incident, yes.
	Okay.
	Now let's pick back up.
	We had just gotten to basically a month after the shooting.
	We had seen all these videos about false flags.
	And then in March 2013, you understand that InfoWars published a broadcast that day, didn't it?
	You're referring to one of the videos?
	On March 27th, 2013?
	Yes.
	What is the title of that video?
	Dr. Steve Pacinic, Sandy Hook was a total false flag.
	Alright, so Dr. Steve Pacinic, Sandy Hook was a total false flag.
	If I'm correct, Dr. Steve Pacinic, Is somebody that has told Alex that he used to be in the CIA. I don't have the details of his bio, but he has a pretty extensive bio that has to do with psychological operations, working for the government, being involved in overthrowing governments, things like that.
	Does he have those credentials, or did he just tell InfoWars he has those credentials?
	He's reported to have those credentials.
	That's what he claims in his bio.
	Reported by Mr. Pijnik, right?
	Or Pijnik, right?
	Yes.
	And that episode, when that episode's talking about false flags in that instance, we're talking about crisis actors, right?
	Specifically crisis actors, I can't remember if that specifically was mentioned in there.
	I just want to be very accurate.
	Sure.
	Okay, well let's talk four days later.
	Can you flip the page for me?
	Yes.
	What's the next video called on April 1st, 2013?
	Crisis Actors Used at Sandy Hook Special Report.
	Okay.
	So there we have April 1st, 2013, InfoWars is publishing a video called Crisis Actors Used at Sandy Hook Special Report.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	On April 9, 2013, InfoWars published a video about Sandy Hook.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	And that video was called Obama Gun Grab Psy-Off.
	Correct?
	Correct.
	And would you agree with me that PSYOT means psychological operation?
	Yes.
	So we've seen now a list of videos from 2013 talking about things like false flag, crisis actors, hoax.
	You agree with that?
	Yes.
	And so if somebody was to say in this courtroom, That Mr. Jones in 2013 was not saying this was fair, was not saying it was a ghost, was not saying that there were crisis actors pretending to be these victims.
	That would not be true, is it?
	I think it would be true because, again, Alex Jones was Still researching things and with the contradictions in the media that was thrown in that time in the mainstream media, he thought that it was his duty to investigate, especially when it involves something as tragic as the deaths of children.
	That shouldn't be used in, say, a government operation.
	Can you look at the title of that April 1st video for me?
	Do you see it on the page?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	The title of that video is not There are contradictions that raise questions about what happened at San Diego.
	The title of that video, if I'm right, is Crisis Actors Used at San Diego.
	Is that right?
	Correct.
	But oftentimes titles just are meant to grab audiences' attention, and then later in the video they get into details, just like all of the national media does.
	I have a newspaper right now, a website.
	It's going to be full of clickbait articles.
	And I'm not even saying that this is clickbait, but I'm saying it's meant to grab a person's attention so they can take a look at the video and see the details.
	Sure does grab attention, right?
	There are crisis actors used as Sandy Hook.
	That's pretty shocking.
	That would be pretty shocking, yes.
	Sure.
	You will agree with me that it was known That the official reports of Sandy Hook that were released by the Connecticut State Attorney's Office, those were available to Infowars, and Infowars knew they were available by December 2013. I don't believe that's true.
	Okay.
	I'm going to approach you now and show you the company's March, excuse me, the company's May 20, 2019 request for admissions.
	We're going to look at those together, okay?
	Yes.
	We're going to read this together, okay?
	Can you see 245 here?
	Okay, I'm going to read it for you.
	The report of the state's attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury on the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School and 36 Uganda Street, Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012 was released to the public on November 25, 2013. Can you read what the company's answer to that is?
	Then on 246, Can be accessed and downloaded from the following website.
	And then do you see the website here?
	Yes.
	And then what is the company's answer?
	Admit.
	And then the company was asked, you were aware that this report was publicly available on or about December 1st, 2013. What is the company's answer?
	I think it's important to make a little instruction for the jury at this time.
	So those questions and answers are part of the process that leads up to trial.
	And similar to how Ms. Karpova is under oath today as she gives her answers, when the representative for the company answered those questions in writing, it was a sworn answer.
	And speaking of that process that happened to pre-trial to answer these questions, that's something that you were involved with in the company helping to answer these things and provide testimony.
	Yes.
	In fact, not only was the company aware of the report, but it had the report.
	You agree with that?
	It must have had the report, yes.
	Okay.
	It must have questioned the report, which is why Alex continued to dig into the story.
	Right, so people at InfoWars, editors at InfoWars, had access to all of the material that was in the state's attorney's report.
	Do you agree with that?
	I did actually so, yes.
	Okay.
	Now, I want to talk to you a little bit about Wolfgang Halbig.
	You know who he is.
	In fact, you, personally, Daria Karpova, you're someone who has an understanding of Mr. Halbig's, what he calls his questions about Sandy Hook.
	You understand that.
	I do have a general understanding that this person who had...
	The credentials to question this event did have several questions that were not answered.
	That was my understanding.
	What I'm specifically asking you is not just you had an understanding that you had questions, you have an understanding of those questions.
	I can't recall the specific questions right now.
	Sure, but if I bring any of these questions to you, you have a knowledge base and an understanding that you can talk about those questions, can't you?
	I'm not sure what you mean by that.
	I'm saying you, through your personal knowledge you've gained, if I were to ask you about any of Wolfgang Halbig's 16 questions, you have done the research that would allow you to answer in detail about those questions.
	Your Honor, I object.
	It calls for hearsay as to, you know, so you understand his questions, and you've done the research, and then you're going to tell me about the research that you've done?
	Overall, thank you.
	You have an understanding of this problem?
	Well, my job is comprised of doing a lot of things, and since Sandy Hook is not the focus of our broadcast at all, I have a lot of duties to take care of and research, so I didn't really spend much time into digging in depth of these specific questions, because that wasn't my priority as the producer, having to take care of a lot of things.
	And it's a live broadcast, so...
	There were a lot of things they cared before and after the show.
	You remember giving a deposition with me, right?
	Yes.
	On December 3rd, 2021?
	Yes, sir.
	You were under oath?
	Yes.
	Do you remember telling me in that deposition when I asked you, do you have an understanding of Mr. Wolfgang Halbick's 16 questions about Sandy Hook, and you telling me yes.
	Again, it's just a very big question.
	I generally have an understanding, but it's exactly what you mean by that.
	I'm not even sure right now what you mean by that.
	Well, let's find out.
	Let's go to the next video that I want to talk to you about, which is March 14, 2014. Do you see that?
	Yes, I do.
	That video is entitled, Sandy Hook, False Narratives vs.
	the Reality.
	Yes, sir.
	I'm going to want to show you a clip from that video so we can talk about it, okay?
	At this time, can we play 8A?
	Major universities he's consulted for.
	I mean, he's a top consultant, a long career as a police officer in Miami, Florida, who's just joining us then in customs, and then he got into being an educator and in security, and he's looking at it and dissecting it like everybody else did.
	Folks, we've got video of Anderson Cooper with clear blue screen out there.
	He's not there in the town square.
	We've got people clearly coming up and laughing and then doing the fake crying.
	We've clearly got people where it's actors playing different parts of different people.
	The building bulldoze, covering up everything.
	Adam Lanza trying to get guns five times, we're told.
	The witnesses not saying it was him.
	People out in the woods.
	But we've got the investigator here, Wolfgang W. Albing.
	I'm going to give you the floor, sir.
	Go over your 16 points, the problems, the issues.
	And break down what you believe is a total hoax.
	I've looked at it and undoubtedly there's a cover-up, there's actors, they're manipulating, they've been caught lying, and they were pre-planning before it and rolled out with it.
	So clearly I agree with you that something's rotten under the floorboards, but is it a possum or is it a human?
	Well, regardless, they're not letting a good crisis go to waste, but you're the expert.
	Break it down for us.
	You heard Mr. Jones in that video refer to Mr. Halbig as a top consultant, correct?
	Yes, that's what Halbig claimed to be.
	That's what he claimed to be, right?
	We didn't have any reason to doubt it at that time.
	Really?
	So, would you agree with me that people were explicitly warning the company that Wolfgang Halbig's credentials were not real?
	Again, there's so many emails that we get, it's impossible to go through every email.
	And if it went to writers, or I can't remember exactly who it went to, but if it didn't get to Alex, or even if he was born, perhaps.
	I can't speak for Alex, but again, a lot of people were questioning Not just Wolfgang Kalbeck and Alex Phillips' duty to address those concerns of the people, the callers who were calling into the show.
	Again, it didn't even happen that often.
	Okay, but what I want to make sure you don't dispute with me is that people definitely were warning the company in explicit terms that Wolfgang Kalbeck's credentials were fake.
	Do you agree with that?
	Would you tell me exactly what you're referring to?
	I'm just asking if you agree with it.
	I can't remember right now.
	Okay, thank you.
	The truth is, though, it doesn't matter whether people were warning you at InfoWars, because according to you, as an InfoWars producer, you do not believe you're responsible for verifying all the claims of your guests.
	That's true?
	It just would not be possible to verify everything.
	We have guests as a piece of talk.
	It's a top-rated show.
	I know.
	I understand, but if you're...
	Impossible.
	It's an opinion driven show.
	It's a political and social commentary.
	So before Wolfgang Hobbit comes on the show, Your testimony is it is impossible to check or verify his credentials.
	I wasn't the producer at that time, and I'm sure the producer at that time did the best they could to verify his credentials.
	And to him, it might have checked out.
	That's the standard practice.
	We do a basic look into the guest, and if they...
	If they seem okay, if they've been on other shows, then we give up a platform and let the audience decide if they should listen to them, believe them, or turn them off.
	Okay, but what I really want to get into, Ms. Karpova, is you believe, as an InfoWars producer, it is not your responsibility to verify your guest's plans.
	Correct?
	I would say it's in part of my responsibility.
	Okay.
	Do you remember...
	And I do that as in my job.
	Do you remember...
	It's the best of my ability.
	Sorry.
	No, it's okay.
	I'll give you some time.
	Do you remember giving this deposition on December 3rd, 2021?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And you were under oath at that time?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Do you remember in that deposition, when I asked you if you think Wolfgang Halberg's credentials are true or reliable, that you told me that I'm not responsible for making sure The claims of our guests are all accurate.
	Do you remember talking to that?
	Yes.
	That comports to what I'm saying right now.
	That is not your responsibility to verify any of this.
	That's what you're telling me.
	To the best of my ability.
	Well, I mean, at least what I'm saying to you.
	It was your testimony under oath last year that you had no responsibility.
	Well, I don't think I said no responsibility.
	And I'm sorry to interrupt you.
	Right.
	Only one person can speak at a time.
	Again, my truthful answer is that I do...
	It's my responsibility to do my best to research the guest and their claims.
	And I've done that before, and I think you actually have an email that I authored, referred to a guest that I didn't think was credible at the time, another guest.
	So I do that on a regular basis, and that's what I was referring to.
	It is my responsibility to the best of my ability, but beyond that, it isn't.
	I'm not the arbiter, ultimately, I'm just going to show you There's
	a lot of things about his credentials.
	Do you think they're all true?
	Do you think Wolfgang Halving is a reliable source about his own credentials?
	What was your answer?
	I'm not responsible for making sure that the claims of our guests are all accurate.
	Thank you.
	I'm going to interrupt one more time just to give the jury another instruction about depositions, which is what was just read from in case you aren't familiar with them.
	A deposition is a procedure conducted out of court in which a witness testifies under oath, answering questions asked by one or more attorneys.
	Later in this trial, you may hear longer excerpts from depositions, but I wanted you to understand that it is a procedure conducted out in court but with the same oath as in court.
	So those answers are also under oath.
	And I'll tell you more about depositions when we hear a longer one later.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Let's go to the next video that I want to talk to you about.
	Do you have the list of videos in front of you?
	I do.
	Okay, on May 9th, 2014. Did you see that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	That was an episode called Revealed, Sandy Hook Truth Exposed.
	Yes.
	And InfoWars wants its viewers to have faith that they can get the truth from InfoWars, correct?
	It's up to the audience.
	We always rely...
	We always...
	We think our audience is smart, and we rely on them to figure out for themselves what they think is true and what's not.
	But we present our opinion.
	Well, the truth, right?
	That's what you're telling your audience to give them, is the truth.
	Sure.
	Everybody has their own definition, truth.
	I don't think that's true, Ms. Garfova.
	Isn't there a truth in anything that's not true?
	Or people have other truths that compete with each other?
	How do you view that?
	Well, because a lot of things that you've said in the opening statement weren't true.
	Well, if they weren't true, they weren't true.
	I'm sure somebody's going to prove that.
	But what I'm saying is that we've watched all these videos, and you've seen the tagline up on those videos where it says Infowars, the front line of truth journalism.
	That's true, isn't it?
	In the way that we believe what we're saying.
	Absolutely.
	I don't stand by that.
	On May 13, just a couple days later, May 13, 2014, InfoWars aired an episode entitled, Sandy Hook Officials Caught in Cover-Up and Running Scare.
	Is that true?
	That's the title, yes.
	And that meant that the town officials were hiding the truth, right?
	Again, I'm referring to what Hootie and Sansa was, the title that's meant to catch the audience and watch the video and put more details.
	Let's talk about another one of those titles.
	And that, you'll see, was on the same day.
	Do you see another video on May 13, 2014?
	Yes.
	And you see it's called Bombshell.
	Sandy Hook Massacre was a DHS illusion, says school safety expert.
	Yes, sir.
	DHS stands for Department of Homeland Security?
	Yes.
	Okay, I'd like to play you a clip from that video.
	Let's go ahead and play 9A, and this will be the clip from bombshell Sandy Hook massacre with a DHS illusion, says school safety expert.
	But let's say you've got three minutes in a nutshell of what's going on here.
	To the layperson out there, as a school safety expert, renowned nationally, Mr. Halbig, of what really happened here, And what would you say to that school board?
	Well, the first thing I've got to say before I get into that is that, thank God, I've had 67 great years of pretty long All they have to do is answer 16 simple questions.
	You and I wouldn't even be talking today.
	It's just, it's unheard of, okay?
	And I think the school board members and the superintendent, they have a responsibility of telling the truth.
	Alex, there's no, I cannot believe that a public school system And you know, when you look at the school itself, when you look at Sandy Hook, it is a filthy school.
	That's what I wanted to talk to the court members about.
	It is a toxic waste dump.
	When you look at the data, and here's what they didn't realize, they put it in their own newspaper before they demolished it.
	Sandy Hook had the highest level of methane throughout the entire school.
	Sandy Hook had the highest level of asbestos in the ceiling tiles and ceiling floors.
	It had the highest level of PCP, and the groundwater is contaminated.
	Now, here's the question Connecticut law requires.
	That every parent must be notified of those hazardous chemicals because they have serious health effects on children which may not be seen until five years later.
	Now, why would any parent, why would those 18 of the 20 parents that moved into Newtown in 2009 enroll their child in a school with all those hazardous chemicals?
	Parents just don't do that.
	They don't expose their little children to chemical hazards.
	Let me just stop you.
	As an investigator, comment they got Al Capone for tax evasion, not for all the murders or money laundering.
	You're looking at how they don't do any of the standard stuff, the paperwork, the police reports, no helicopters sent, no rescue, kids going in circles, totally staged, men with guns in the woods getting grabbed, no names released.
	They deny it went on, later have to admit it went on, but say we're not answering questions.
	I mean, clearly it's a drill.
	Just like the Boston bombing.
	I don't know exactly what's going on, but the official story isn't true.
	And again, I've read a lot of criminology.
	I'm not a cop, but I've studied a lot of it.
	And just from a lay media investigative journalist perspective, something is rotten here.
	And then you see it duplicated over and over again.
	What's your bottom line?
	What do you think really happened at Sandy Hook?
	People can see your 16 questions at SandyHookJustice.com, and we just salute your will to go up there and have eight police cars block you the United Way and have them shut you down at the scrim board, at the commission.
	But bottom line, what do you, as an almost 40-year investigator, police officer, you name it, what do you think is happening here?
	Well, until they answer those questions, I can tell you children did not die, teachers did not die on December 14, 2012. During that video, we saw some video footage of Wolfgang Albeck at a Newtown Board of Education meeting.
	Are you familiar with that?
	Yes, I saw that video.
	That video was taken by an InfoWars camera crew.
	I'm not sure.
	Okay.
	Well, you understand Dan Badongi went up there, right?
	Yes, he did.
	Okay.
	That's an Infowars reporter.
	I think at some time he was a reporter and he took that responsibility onto himself.
	All right.
	So I'm trying to understand your testimony.
	Just like other reporters.
	Okay.
	So in other words, he's just as any other reporter.
	I'm just saying there are other reporters or people that have That's not what happened with Dan Badandi going to Newtown though, right?
	Infowars sent Dan Badandi to Newtown.
	Correct?
	I don't remember specifics of him being sent.
	Well, let's start first of all.
	Dan Badandi was a hired employee of Infowars, right?
	Again, I'd have to talk to the HR person.
	I'm not sure his status as to employee or contact.
	This may put it this way.
	This may shorten it up.
	You might not be the best person to talk about Dan Badani's employer status.
	Correct?
	Correct.
	Okay, we'll deal with that with some of that.
	On May 14, 2014, there was another video, correct?
	Yes.
	And that one was called, Sandy Hook Red Flags Ignored by Newtown School Board, correct?
	Yes.
	And that was another report about the meeting that Mr. Halbig was at.
	I believe so.
	Okay.
	I want to show you an email from that day 53 53
	No, I Your Honor, at this time we can move to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 53. 53 is admitted.
	Can we put 53 up on the screen, Melissa?
	I'm going to hand you a copy of what's been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 53. And again, I do apologize to the jury.
	I know on these emails, this lettering is very small.
	So we're going to read this together.
	Okay, Ms. Carpenter?
	Yes.
	Okay, so follow along with me here.
	And what we have is an email at the bottom.
	And that is from Matt at InfoWars.com, correct?
	Correct.
	And it is to Louie S. at InfoWars.com, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now, Louie is somebody who handles a lot of the website and social media stuff.
	Do you agree with that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So Matt, an InfoWars employee, writes to Louie.
	And he says, Hello, Louie.
	Can you do me a favor?
	Just got a phone call from my friend Johnny Walker.
	Some people are posting some bullshit about how he was involved in the Sandy Hook school shooting last year, including some personal stuff about John.
	They did the thing about a year ago.
	Apparently there are more than one Johnny Walker in the world.
	Last time it involved going through his Facebook page and pointing out friends with Jewish names and things like that.
	John is a character, but was not even in the San Diego time zone.
	If you see it, could you take care of it for him?
	Thanks, Matt W. Did I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then Mui says, the site has been acting weird and not letting me search.
	I think we can make a fair assumption he's talking about the Infowars website at that time?
	I believe so.
	Okay.
	And he says, if he can give me an article or username involved, let me know.
	Otherwise, I'll see it at, I'll get on it, and then a little winky face smile.
	Now, it's true that the InfoWars website has portions of it where viewers can participate in forums and post things on the website.
	There are comments, which is a typical video hosting site or article hosting site, and we are underneath the article.
	The registered users are able to post some comments.
	And what's being said here, from Matt to Louie, is Matt's telling Louie that one of his friends is getting caught up in this Sandy Hook hoax stuff by users of the website.
	And he'd like Louie to delete that stuff, and Louie says he will do that if he finds it.
	That's correct?
	correct I want to talk to you about an article And that article was called, FBI Says Nobody Died at San Diego.
	You know what I'm talking about, don't you?
	Could you refresh my mailing, please?
	Sure, I think we can do that.
	One thing that I think would be really easy to refresh your memory with is Plaintiff's Exhibit 39 that we looked at the other day, yesterday.
	Music can you put 309 up on the screen for me?
	And music can you zoom in on the entry for number 14?
	Okay.
	Okay.
	You saw we were looking at the analytics of the InfoWars website before, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And here we have an entry for a landing page, a website for an article at InfoWars, correct?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	That article, it writes here, FBI says no one killed at Sandy Hook.
	Right?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	And the number of people who saw that, the page views on that page, 3,646,000 people.
	That's the number of clicks on that story.
	Yes.
	I would like you to, if I can put this in front of you.
	As we go down those lists, on the list of 1 to 14, most of the things on the list of the top landing sites on Infowars are things just like Infowars.com slash or Infowars.com slash videos, right?
	That's another one.
	Or there's another one for the sections on the website, the various sections of the website, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	But we only see on this list, this one right here is a story, number seven, right?
	Yes.
	Looks like a video, maybe.
	Okay.
	And then if you look down, you'll see there's another story listed, too.
	There's a couple stories on there.
	But would you agree with me that FBI No One Says No One Killed Sandy Hook is the third most viewed story on that list?
	I think it might be a video, but let's see.
	Again, I'll take your word for it.
	I'm just not able to really quickly calculate the ratings right now.
	Oh, yeah, can you show me, can you point it out too?
	Well, here, let me try to go down with you and we can see it, okay?
	It's a very small print.
	Well, those are coming apart on me.
	We're going to do it this fancy way for a Number seven, right?
	You see number seven?
	And that says...
	Right.
	Complete video shot from Virginia Gunman's point of view.
	This isn't the story.
	That's not a story.
	The next story would be this one, 13. Do you agree with me?
	Let's try to talk about it this way.
	This is a landing page.
	This is a landing page.
	That was Boston bombing culprits found.
	Then this one is The FBI says no one killed it, Sandy Hook.
	That's the third one on the list, right?
	Third most popular of those landing pages that are stories of Indians, right?
	Thank you Give me just a second to pull in here and replace my Yeah, I keep a pair up here for witnesses You can share but if you have more that's great Be amazed how many witnesses don't bring their reading glasses Not a bad trick, I would imagine.
	I never thought of that.
	I really just thought they forgot them, because they didn't know they'd be reading something.
	Alright, I want to talk about the following day, Mr. Harper.
	We talked about this article, FBI, or video.
	I don't know how it was presented.
	But I want to talk about the following day on September 25th, 2014. Do you see a video on that list?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And let me ask you this.
	Do you see a video on September 24th, 2015?
	I do not.
	So if there is a video entitled, FBI Says Nobody Killed at Sandy Hook, if that's a video and not an article, InfoWars never handed it over to any of these guys.
	I guess they couldn't find it and it wasn't there.
	Because there's a lot of videos that InfoWars might not be able to find anymore, right?
	Correct.
	So if somebody was to say that those videos on that list were the total amount that InfoWars covered Sandy Hook, they can't say that, can they?
	I don't know.
	I want to talk about that next day, September 25th, 2014, there was a video called Sandy Hook Depths, Missing from FBI Report.
	Do you agree with that?
	I'd like to show you a clip from that video.
	Can we play 10A? We're fearless, folks.
	Support us.
	Support Wolfgang.
	This is not a game.
	They are hopping mad we're covering this.
	CNN admits they did fake scut attacks on themselves back in 1991, 1990. Would they stage this?
	I don't know.
	Do pink ones live in Antarctica?
	Wolfgang W. Alba is our guest, former state police officer that worked for the Customs Department, and then over the last decades created one of the biggest, most successful school safety training groups, and he just has gone and investigated, and it's as funny as a $3 bill, and they've been...
	But man, Wolfgang, you dropped a bombshell of your scores of points, your 16 questions.
	If you've got a school of 100 kids, and then nobody can find them, And then they walk over to the camera and go...
	But not just one, but a bunch of parents doing this.
	And then photos of kids that are still alive, they said died.
	I mean, they think we're so dumb that it's really hidden in plain view.
	And so the preponderance...
	I thought they had some scripting early on to exacerbate and milk the crisis.
	But when you really look at it, where are the lawsuits?
	There would be incredible lawsuits and payouts, but there haven't been any filed, nothing.
	I've never seen this.
	This is incredible.
	Ms. Karpova, did you hear Mr. Jones say in that episode, or in that clip right there, there are photos of kids who are still alive they said die?
	Yes.
	That would be pretty shocking if it were true, right?
	It would be pretty shocking if it would be...
	It's the kind of thing that's so shocking, it'd be the kind of thing you'd want to verify or confirm before you set it to millions of people, correct?
	Again, Wolfgang Halbig was very pushy and persistent on getting on the broadcast.
	You know, he claimed that he had bombshell information Alex would have him on, but after a while, once The story kept developing.
	Wolfgang would send dozens of emails per day and they were all ignored to just general enforce Vox.
	Objection on responses.
	Sustained.
	We didn't hear Wolfgang Halbig talk in that video, didn't we?
	Well, he was the guest.
	Sure, I understand that.
	But we heard Mr. Jones say there are photos of kids who they said died who are still alive.
	That's what Mr. Jones said.
	Correct.
	And Mr. Jones should have verified that.
	He was going to say something that outrageous.
	Right?
	Or do you not think so?
	I can't speak for it.
	I'm not sure what was going through his head that time.
	Okay.
	I'd like to show you another clip from that same video.
	Again, we're looking at September 25th, 2014. San Diego deaths missing from FBI report.
	Can we play clip 10b?
	Well, according to FBI crime statistics at fbi.gov, no one died in 2012 In Sandy Hook, it shows no homicides in that town.
	And that story by Adan Salazar is online at Infowars.com.
	We'll put that on screen.
	Show some screenshots of those statistics for TV viewers.
	Again, radio listeners can go there and pull that up for themselves.
	Alright, once again we're hearing about this story about how the FBI said nobody died at Sandy Hook, right?
	Correct.
	And that also, that'd be pretty shocking if it was true, wouldn't it?
	Yes, maybe.
	Might be the kind of thing you'd want to verify with the FBI, isn't it?
	Well, Alex was relying on the writers that he just mentioned in the video, and Alex lets the writers do their own research and post a story.
	And he doesn't really control what they write.
	And that wasn't verified with the FBI, was it?
	I don't know if the writer verified it or not.
	Okay.
	Well, maybe ask him.
	I would like to play with you another part of that episode.
	Can we play clip 10C? I've got a cousin in black ops and he said, your show is absolutely accurate.
	Our orders come from the State Department, not even from the Pentagon.
	And so, I knew it stunk.
	I mean, why would Anderson Cooper turn and be on green screen and his nose disappear?
	Why would they have kids going in and coming out clearly staged?
	I just didn't...
	Early on, I said, well, they had to have killed somebody.
	I mean, this doesn't make sense.
	Did parents come out and start laughing and then turn to the camera and cry?
	I mean, this stinks to high heaven.
	This is what you do.
	Tell us...
	Why do you question up front, recapping for new listeners, and then get into, I know you went back and visited recently, and tell us what happened.
	Well, you know, the big thing that we found is, we actually found the only footage, live footage, Shot by a helicopter.
	It's the only footage, Alex, that has a timestamp on it.
	When you see the people chasing each other in the woods.
	Remember, that's what CNN really did.
	They tried to hook everybody, and they're showing these people running and running into the woods.
	Because guess what?
	They announced that a teacher just reported seeing two shadows running by the gym.
	Well, Alex, that footage was not shot till 1223 in the afternoon.
	Now, why would you have chased somebody in the woods after lunch?
	The school was safe and secure by 1035. These are all scripted events.
	These were events that were specially shot, filmed, choreographed for CNN to have fun with it.
	Absolutely, and we caught them on the blue screens.
	Ms. Karpova, in this video they talk about this helicopter footage of some people being detained in the woods?
	Correct.
	And that it was taken at 1223 hours after the shooting?
	Correct.
	Because that's reporters that were trying to get to both of the schools?
	Correct.
	Understands that was fully documented in the final report?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	And this is a live show, Wolfgang was a guest, and it just spurred the moment they didn't pre-plan, you know, it's not a, the beauty of Alex Jones shows that it is not a scripted show, so whatever the guest says is what you get.
	And this is why people actually tune in to Alex Jones versus TNA. Okay, and you described that as beautiful.
	It's, it's one, it's one of the, it's, The genuineness of the broadcast and Alex presenting what he believes at that time is what people are attracted to.
	He's not lying about what he's saying.
	Now you will agree with me that over the next few years that Mr. Jones, despite knowing from Wolfgang Halbeck that that video was taken hours after the shooting at 1224, that Mr. Jones has repeatedly claimed That that video depicts second shooters dressed in SWAT gear being detained in the woods.
	Do you understand that?
	I don't know if he knew that that was a false video.
	And again, because it's not, it doesn't, it comprises any, comprises very little of his attention.
	You know, he's, I don't know how much, you know, I don't know.
	I don't know if he, I know for a fact that he wasn't lying when he was presenting that video.
	If he remembered it wrong, That's another story, and again, I don't know.
	You would agree with me that around this time, anyway, the term crisis actor was frequently being used inside of InfoWars attached to this event?
	yes no need to delay some critical relevance Okay.
	Oh, sorry.
	No, no, I didn't.
	I was literally getting it back.
	No objection.
	No objection.
	What number?
	55. Claimers 55 is admitted.
	Constraint 55. This is really quick.
	No body of this email.
	Nothing, right?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	This is an email from Nico.
	Yes.
	That's an In-For-Wars producer?
	Yes.
	Used to be.
	That is to Rob Du?
	Yes.
	Rob Du, at this time, I believe, was the nightly news director?
	I'm not sure exactly the days of him being the director for that news, but I'll take the word for it.
	One thing we could probably agree on, though, is that Rob Du is a very high-level production employee at In-For-Wars.
	Used to be.
	Used to be.
	Okay.
	Now, this email, it seems to have some attachments to it, right?
	It's a PDF file.
	And then the subject says, Ebola Sandy Hook Crisis Actor clips attached, correct?
	Correct.
	Thank you, Mr. Karpova.
	Ms. Karpova, I'd like to show you what's already marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 56, an article that was written by N4s.
	If you can bring up just the title of that article first, and then we'll want to look at the first three figures.
	This article was entitled Internet Sensors, Viral Sandy Hook Truth Documentary.
	That's right?
	Correct.
	And the date we see on there is December 9th, 2014. Is that right?
	Yes.
	Alright, let's pull up the first three paragraphs of this article.
	I'm going to read this to you, okay?
	It states, Last Monday, an organization known as the Independent Media Solidarity released an epic documentary entitled We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook, which they hosted on their own site as well as YouTube.
	Within hours of the video's upload, it was well on its way to going viral, however, its success was short-lived.
	Shortly after Infowars, Began hosting the video the following Tuesday morning.
	It was suddenly removed from YouTube due to a copyright claim by Lenny Posner.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then you'll see in these articles, there are advertisements for the supplements that we've been talking about in this job, correct?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	So basically, there had been some group of people who were trying to investigate Sandy Hook.
	And they had published a documentary, which had been quickly banned.
	And InfoWars decided it would distribute it using its platform.
	That's right?
	Correct is we stand against censorship.
	And this is the point of the article.
	trying to say that as soon as the wars posted it it got removed because in force believes it should be able to publish the false facts about anyone with no consequence right false sorry what exhibit number was that I'm sorry, that was 56. Thank you.
	Then on December 12, 2014, on your list, Infowars published a video entitled, Sandy Hook Film Censorship Efforts Backfire.
	Is that right?
	That's the title.
	Right.
	And that show, Mr. Jones brought on, Is that right?
	Probably.
	And Mr. Jones helped promote their efforts.
	Is that right?
	I believe Alex wanted to remedy the fact that they were censoring.
	Around this time, I'm drawing your attention basically to December 2014, which is right around the second anniversary of the shoot.
	By this time, people had been contacting InfoWars and warning them that what they were doing as a conservative Sandy Hook was very bad.
	Do you agree with that?
	I can't agree with that specific statement.
	The Honourable Judge.
	Move Judge.
	Okay.
	I don't know the number.
	I'm going to bring you what I've marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 57. No objection.
	No objection.
	Plaintiff's 57 is admitted.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	All right.
	I'm going to give the panel's email.
	And Ms. Carpovo, on this email, I would like you to switch, go to the final page, and you'll see how that's the very end go to the final page, and you'll see how that's the very end of It appears so.
	Okay, so let's go back previous one page to the start of that email.
	Do you see where that email starts?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	Melissa, can you put page seven up on the screen?
	And we'll need to go to page three, the bottom of the page.
	I'm going to read this to you, okay?
	Yes.
	This is sent to InfoWars whistleblowers, whistleblowers@infowars.com, right?
	Yes.
	This message reads, to whom it may concern, I'm a writer whose articles have been featured on your website, infowars.com.
	I now primarily write for Americans' regrets.
	However, what I'm writing to you now is not on their behalf.
	I know many Posner personally.
	Mr. Posner's son was brutally murdered on 12-14-2012.
	I have met with this man and have seen verified documents that are indisputable proof that his son was murdered.
	I have also seen the email exchanges between himself and your staff.
	You told Mr. Posner that Alex Jones acknowledged that children died and dismissed the idea of a hoax.
	Now you are promoting the hoax mythology and entertaining individuals I can prove are frauds and child predators.
	I must warn you that you are traveling down a road that will ultimately lead to serious lawful consequences.
	Those you have placed your faith in are providing you with information that is verifiably false and your ignorance to these facts is no excuse against your complicity.
	Think about what you are doing.
	You are willing to participate I was brutally murdered and doing so at a time which we are approaching the second anniversary of this horrendous act.
	Think about that for a moment.
	I will do all in my power to assist Mr. Posner and other victims Individuals who they have fallen prey to.
	To that end, I would ask the IV lab to appear on your program and set the record straight on so much disinformation that is being spread about the SHES massacre.
	Please make the wise decision.
	I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	All right, let's go up to the next email.
	All right, this email's from Rob Du.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	Who we agreed is a high production employee at InfoWars at that time.
	At that time.
	Okay.
	He says, Keith, can you be more specific of who you are referring to, being frauds and child predators?
	You are warning us about talking about something and you work for the American Free Press.
	Are we only allowed to talk about topics you approve?
	If you undisputed proof about Sandy Hook, I would love to put it on our show.
	Threatening our organization to appear on the show is not the way to do it.
	Censorship is news and people and organizations in Newtown have singled out a single video when there are millions of videos about the Sandy Hook incident.
	I never discount our government on the ability to murder, but when the act is pinned on a feeble kid carrying pounds of ammunition, firearms, And there is not one shred of video evidence that this person was inside or in front of the school, which has just upgraded its video surveillance system, then it's our duty to ask questions.
	When those who ask questions are attacked and their questions ignored, that only increases the likelihood of a cover-up.
	Why is Sandy Hook the only event we are not allowed to question?
	We can have you on Friday for the nightly news.
	We shoot interviews via video Skype.
	Thanks, Rob Du.
	I read that right?
	You read the words right, but the tone you inflict on it just supposes that he's being snarky or some kind of condescending to this person, but he isn't at all.
	Okay.
	I can read you the email in Rob Du's voice if you'd like me.
	I don't need you to do a Rob Du's voice.
	Let's go to the nice demo.
	That one's a little hard to assume.
	It's pretty much the whole page.
	So I'm going to read it along with you.
	Hopefully the jury can listen in on this.
	We got a little bit better, but we'll try to do what we can.
	Rob says, thank you for your reply.
	Or I'm sorry, Keith Johnston says to Rob, Rob, thank you for your reply.
	I would love to be on the show Friday night, but I cannot use half Skype.
	I live in a rural area of Tennessee.
	I must rely on HughesNet satellite, which causes a delay.
	If calling in by phone is not acceptable, I'm trying to make arrangements with a friend to use their Skype.
	Now, concerning some of the points you made.
	For one thing, the security system was not upgraded in 2012. It was upgraded earlier than that, and I have proof.
	The letter referring to the upgrade was on the school website, but originally written in 2010. The video camera in use at the time had no recording feature.
	Adam Lanza was more than capable of carrying out the attacks, and I can explain why on your show.
	I also wrote an article recently with my interview with a prominent clinical psychologist on Asperger's and what impact it would have Frauds?
	You are promoting Wolfgang Howland, a man with less than a year of law enforcement, as a ticket-riding Florida Highway Patrolman in 1974, and a 3.3-hour online certificate with NIMS. He claims to have been a homicide detective and a consultant on Columbine.
	Both claims are false, and I can prove it.
	I have documented multiple lies, this man told.
	In addition, I have exposed the intentional manufacturing of evidence by Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists and have indisputable and documented proof of their frauds.
	Child predators?
	The dictionary definition of a predator, a person or group that ruthlessly exploits others.
	What else would you call those seeking to hunt down the children who sang at the 2013 Super Bowl and stalks children at playgrounds in Newtown and plots ways to exhume the bodies of dead children?
	I have further information on that I can also share.
	Let's talk about censorship.
	Censorship is a function of government, not private industry.
	The videos were taken down were done so after the complaints of copyright holders of photos and music were filed.
	As far as questions not being answered, those questions have been answered, especially Wolfgang Halbig's notorious 16 questions.
	Myself and Sandy Hook researcher CWA have both answered those questions.
	I will follow up this email with more information in the next few hours But I wanted to get something out before the night expires.
	I have a few tours to attend to in the meantime.
	Thanks for your timely reply.
	Talk soon.
	Sincerely, Keith Johnson.
	Have I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now, InfoWars did eventually have Mr. Johnson on the show, right?
	Right.
	Had him there to do a debate with Wolfgang, didn't they?
	That's what I'm calling.
	And Mr. Johnson tried to explain on InfoWars Why Wolfgang was wrong, didn't he?
	I can't recall specific details of the video game.
	Well, in any case, after that episode, InfoWars ultimately sided with Wolfgang.
	kept having them on the show and repeating the things he was saying right are you just are you referring to specific video of walking I'm asking you mr.
	Sure, I'm asking you, Ms. Carpova, after 2014, Wolfgang Halbig was on the show repeatedly throughout the next year, and Infowars kept repeating his claims repeatedly until 2017-2018.
	Can you agree with that?
	Are those videos that you have on the list?
	Let's stop for just one second.
	That will hopefully help us with this.
	Our deposition is.
	We're going to enter it.
	Mr. Skarpova, I'm approaching you with the notice that was given to you for the things you were to be prepared on to testify in this case.
	Okay?
	I was at the deposition.
	Sure.
	Sure.
	And her role as a corporate representative to provide testimony as a corporate representative.
	Do you remember seeing this notice?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You see how it has the topics at the bottom?
	Yes.
	What's the number one topic?
	Sourcing and research for the videos described in plaintiff's petitions.
	After the preparation that you had done, are you telling me right now that you cannot tell me if after 2015, InfoWars was still hosting Wolfgang Halbert and repeating the things he was saying?
	Are you not prepared to testify to that?
	Again, I'm not sure the videos you're referring to.
	There are a lot of videos that Inborn produces.
	They're in front of you.
	Okay, so these are the videos you're talking about.
	Well, certainly a lot of those happened after 2015, didn't it?
	Okay, I think you're referring to specifically Wolfgang Halbig being in those videos, and I can't remember specifically these instances.
	Why don't you take a look?
	Take a look at the videos in 2015 for me.
	Is Wolfgang Halbig in any of those videos, do you think?
	there are a total of one two three four five six seven videos ten videos in the year 2015 and looking at those titles you can tell me right now mr. how good was intimate I mean, we're going to watch them in a minute.
	Sure, let's watch them.
	Around this time, at the end of 2014, Infowars, in its corporate files, had information showing that Wolfgang Halbig was harassing parents.
	Do you agree with that?
	Could you repeat that again?
	I'm sorry.
	In 2014, at the conclusion of that year, by that point, Infowars had documents in its corporate files establishing the fact that Wolfgang Halbig was harassing parents.
	Do you agree with that?
	I would just need to see the documents you refer to please.
	Okay.
	I'm going to object this is not a corporate plan.
	Let's lay some foundation for that.
	Ms. Karpov, I'm going to show you this.
	This is Plaintiff's Exhibit 58. Ms. Karpov, the first question I want to ask you is, do you see down at the bottom, it has a series of numbers on it?
	Correct?
	And those numbers say, FSSTX-039550.
	Correct?
	Now you know, from dealing with the discovery in this case, that what that is, is a stamp that info was put on the documents that it gave to the plaintiff.
	You understand that?
	I think so.
	You also, we saw this, we discussed this document in deposition, right?
	If you give me a second to go over...
	Sure, why don't you go ahead and read the email just really quick to see if you remember us talking about it in deposition Edward Car
	do in the 대통령 but that is somehow game by.
	Yes, I remember.
	You remember discussing this email, right?
	Yes.
	Remember how we discussed how this email came out of InfoWars corporate files?
	It resides in InfoWars corporate files.
	Objection.
	Corporate files?
	That's vague, Your Honor.
	Object to it is vague.
	Corporate files.
	Well, I'm going to overrule it.
	She can answer the question if she knows the answer.
	Yeah, so the corporate...
	I'm going to show where the corporate files came from, and I surely don't...
	For sure don't know if Alex had seen this email.
	Okay, the question, you need to focus on what the questions you...
	Please don't interrupt.
	You need to focus on the question you're asking, not just what you feel like saying.
	And the question, you remember how we discussed how this email came out of InfoWars corporate files.
	This resides in InfoWars corporate files.
	That was the question.
	Correct, and I'm sorry, I just can't truthfully answer.
	As to the nature of what your policy is.
	I don't want your apologies.
	I want you to prepare the way I ordered you to prepare months and months ago, and I want you to answer the questions that are asked to you truthfully.
	So if the answer is yes, if the answer is no, if the answer is I don't know, I just want the answer.
	I object to that instruction.
	Ms. Karpova is not here as a corporate representative.
	She's being questioned about her deposition testimony when she was a corporate representative.
	That's what this question referred to.
	I understand.
	I think she doesn't understand what corporate files means.
	She didn't say that.
	She said correct.
	I think we can move on.
	The answer was correct.
	That's the answer we got.
	Your Honor, at this time we would move to admit.
	Plan is 58. 58 is admitted.
	We put 58 up Okay, and let's show this part first so you can see what it is first I know this is going to be a part of your memory.
	But you see how this is from Wolf getting help, correct?
	Yes, it is.
	She still has it in front of her, right?
	You still have the doctor in front of her?
	And it's two, there's an email address of a person's name at something called Hager Sharp, and an email address at info at safeandsoundschools.org.
	You see that?
	Yes.
	This email is dated December 21st, 2014?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And the subject is, I urge Michelle to stop using Josephine in making money and appearing on speaking engagements.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I'm going to read this email to you.
	Michelle, how could you and your husband, as responsible parents, even allow your precious child, Josephine, to attend that filthy and deplorable-looking school on December 14, 2012?
	This school has, as you must have known, is and was a toxic waste dump, as reported by the environmental consultants who requested more money from the city of Newtown leaders before demolishing the school I'm
	sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	Why would you as a parent, and all those other parents who supposedly lost a child to gunfire, allow their children, as you did, to serious toxic waste?
	This all unfolded before the first shot at the school even occurred.
	Did you not see the filth and deplorable conditions when you went to that school, or are you blind?
	I do not understand unless you explain it to me, and the world, Why you and your husband failed Josephine, who was a non-verbal child, as you stated, and depended on you for her safety.
	She needed you to protect her from all of the serious health risks that you sentenced her to on a daily basis.
	Now, you talk about school security.
	You have got to be joking.
	You have all these experts on your staff who are now part of your conspiracy They should be ashamed of their actions in supporting you.
	A mom puts her own child at risk on a daily basis is now the expert on school security.
	I look forward in meeting you one day when I can take your deposition, not about the shooting, but why you and your husband failed Josephine by sending her to that filthy and deplorable school with all that toxic waste.
	We call this child endangerment.
	When you know of danger that you expose your child to, serious, lifelong health risks.
	We must know, without a doubt, because pictures do not end this as LI, and I believe that's a lie.
	You put her life in serious risk every day knowing how filthy and deplorable that school is.
	I am enclosing photos that you must recognize since you took your child to that school, And having a child with special needs, you would expect a school environment and school climate that allows children to learn and teachers to teach.
	Or it says teachers to tech, but I think that's teach.
	And then he says, right?
	Perhaps, please explain to me, if you can, why a school principal, Dawn Hofsprung, would allow her school to be so filthy and deplorable.
	There is not one female elementary school principal in this country that would allow her school to be that filthy and deplorable.
	Both inside and outside, and most of all, allow her school to become a toxic waste dump, placing every child in her school and staff in serious, lifelong health risks.
	Right?
	All the pictures were taken by Major Crime Squad from the Connecticut State Police.
	Please respond, since you are now the expert on school security.
	Wolfgang W. Halbert.
	Did I read that right?
	Yes, you read that right.
	And Wolfgang had sent this email.
	To the parents of a murdered autistic girl.
	Do you realize that?
	I realize that, and you were supposed to...
	Yes.
	Okay, so Infowars, in its corporate files, had information as early as the end of 2014 that Wolfgang Hobbitt was doing this kind of thing.
	Do you agree with that?
	Could you specify this kind of thing?
	The email we just saw.
	Correct.
	And you're classifying it as a harassment of the parents?
	I would.
	Sure.
	But I'm just asking you.
	They knew about this.
	In fours knew about this.
	I'm not sure who did the fours knew the budgets.
	Is this a good time for a break?
	We sure would be, though.
	All right.
	This is going to be our morning break.
	It's 1030. We'll return at 1050, so we'll take a 20-minute break.
	Jury, please remember all of my prior instructions about not discussing anything that's going on in the courtroom.
	Jury, great.
	Thank you.
	All rise. All rise.
	All rise.
	that was from December 2014 that informs past You have that email.
	The company has it.
	Again, truthfully, I'm not sure what the email came from.
	I'm not really interested in where it came from.
	I'm interested in the company gave it to me from its materials, correct?
	I'm not asking you to assume, didn't you testify to me that you were personally involved in the discovery in this case, and that you personally know that that stamp down at the bottom means that that was a document given by the company to me.
	You know that, right?
	It appears so.
	And that email is Wolfgang Halbeck harassing the parent of a murdered little girl.
	Right?
	I can't agree with that statement.
	So I want to make sure we have this clear for the jury.
	We just read this email about Wolfgang Halbick telling this mother how she failed her nonverbal child.
	And leveling all these accusations against her.
	To you, InfoWars' eyes sees this email.
	That's not harassment?
	To me, this seems like Wolfgang was a person who was very perturbed by the incident.
	And horrified that in his mind the children were used for this tragedy.
	And he's trying his best to address the situation.
	That's what it sounds like to me.
	And he certainly, I don't feel like he believes that this is a parent who lost a child.
	And he is truthful, he's just horrified that the children in his mind are being used.
	right, because in this email when he keeps on talking about To Ms. Gay, Josephine, your non-verbal child, and you failed Josephine in the shooting that day.
	The truth of it is he's mocking her because he doesn't believe that she had a child named Josephine.
	He doesn't believe that was a real child.
	That's correct, right?
	I don't believe he's mocking her.
	I think he's just appalled.
	So am I. Let's look at another video.
	I'd like you to look at your next list.
	December 28, 2014. You see that?
	Yes.
	Okay, so we're still not even out of 2014 yet.
	And we have another video called America the False Democracy.
	Right?
	We do, yes.
	Okay, I'd like to show you a Let's talk to Kevin.
	Kevin, go ahead.
	You're on the air.
	Hi Alex, I'm calling about Sandy Hook.
	Basically my take on it is I live about 50 miles from Newtown And the whole thing is pretty much The next step in reality TV Because with other false flags Like 9-11 or Oklahoma City Or the Boston bombing At least something happened With Sandy Hook There's no there there You've got a bunch of people walking around a parking lot Pretty much what it comes down to No, no, I've had the investigators on I've had the state police have gone public
	The whole thing is a giant hoax.
	And the problem is, how do you deal with a total hoax?
	I mean, just, how do you even convince the public something's a total hoax?
	Well, I always tell people the same thing.
	go out and prove the official story.
	And I knew that millisecond this happened with that now fake picture of the kids being went out of the school, that there's nothing that's going to sell this agenda like dead elementary school kids.
	The general public doesn't know the school was actually closed the year before.
	They don't know they've sealed it all, demolished the building.
	They don't know that they had the kids going in circles in and out of the building as a photo op.
	Blue screen, green screens they got caught using.
	I mean, the whole thing.
	But remember, this is the same White House.
	It's been caught running the fake bin Laden raid that's come out and been faked.
	It's the same White House that got caught running all these other fake events over and over again.
	And it's the same White House that says, I never said that you could keep your doctor when he did say you could keep your doctor.
	People just instinctively know that there's a lot of fraud going on.
	But it took me about a year with Sandy Hook to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing was fake.
	I mean, even I couldn't believe it.
	I knew they jumped on it, used the crisis, typed it up, but then I did deep research, and my gosh, it just pretty much didn't happen.
	Mr. Jones said the state police have gone public.
	Did you hear that?
	Yes.
	What does that mean?
	I'm not sure.
	Okay.
	You remember earlier we looked at the notice of the topics that you were supposed to prepare for when you were becoming a corporate representative, right?
	Yes.
	One of those was the sourcing and research for the videos and plans of petition, right?
	Correct.
	And those claims that were made in those petitions, right?
	Correct.
	But as far as Mr. Jones saying the state police have gone public, you can't testify about what that's supposed to mean.
	I have no idea what else he referred to.
	Right.
	But would you at least agree with me that the state police of any state have not gone public saying that Sandy Hook is fake?
	You'd agree with that, right?
	I don't know for sure.
	So you're going to testify to this jury that you think sitting on the stand today that it might be possible that one of the state police forces of one of the 50 states came public and said Sandy Hook was fake.
	You think that's possible?
	I'm trying to be as truthful as possible right now.
	For my personal knowledge, I can't make that definitive statement.
	That's fair enough.
	Okay.
	Do you know about the article, Sandy Hook Victim Dies Again in Pakistan?
	Are you familiar with that?
	It's not a video, so it won't be on that list.
	I'm just asking if you're familiar with this article.
	is a pre-eventful thing in input.
	Would you refresh my library, please?
	Do you remember the fact that Mr. Jones made the claim that a Sandy Hook victim, Noah Posner, was actually also died again in a fake mass shooting in Pakistan?
	Do you know about that article?
	Could you remind me of the year of the article?
	Yeah, right about right now when we're talking about, which is right at the end of 2014 to right at the beginning of January 2nd or so of 2015. You remember that that was a big story being pushed on Infowars.
	That Noah Posner died again in a fake mass shooting in Pakistan.
	Right?
	I wasn't following the force closely at that time and I wasn't working at the company yet, so I cannot...
	So again, with the topics that you were asked to prepare for, including the sourcing of the videos, if there's videos in this case talking about Noah Posner dying again in Pakistan and this fake mass shooting in Pakistan, I'm not sure so.
	Okay.
	Well, I'd like to show you a video from January 13th, 2015. You see that on the list, right?
	Yes.
	Okay, and that episode is entitled, Why We Accept Government Lies.
	I'd like you to pay attention while I play you a clip from this video.
	And specifically, there's a lot of things said in this video, right?
	So pay attention to all of it.
	But you're going to hear about this fake mass shooting in Pakistan, right?
	And about using the Sandy Hook victim's picture.
	I want you to watch that and see if it refreshes your memory on this controversy, okay?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So let's play clip 13A.
	Yeah, when you're trying to, I mean, for flunk and dagger, dirty tricks, it's pretty hard to do.
	It's just that then you learn that they were funded by Western funding, then you learn that it was the same Amaral, Lockie Connection, Underwear Bonner, then those are big red flags that they were patsy provocateurs.
	The classic M.O. has been followed.
	And then, yeah, it kind of becomes a red herring to say the whole thing was staged.
	Because they have staged events before, but then you learn the school had been closed and reopened and you got video of the kids going in circles in and out of the building and they don't call the rescue choppers for two hours and then they tear the building down and seal it and they get caught using blue screens and an email by Bloomberg comes out in a lawsuit.
	Where he's telling his people, get ready in the next 24 hours to capitalize on a shooting.
	Yeah, so Sandy Hook is a synthetic, completely fake, with actors, in my view, manufactured.
	I couldn't believe it at first.
	I knew they had actors there, clearly, but I thought they killed some real kids.
	And it just shows how bold they are that they clearly used actors.
	I mean, they even ended up using...
	Photos of kids killed in mass shootings here in a fake mass shooting in Turkey.
	So, yeah, or Pakistan.
	The sky is now the limit.
	I appreciate your call.
	Okay, the first thing I want to ask you about, do you hear about the Pakistan thing?
	Does that refresh you at all, what I'm talking about?
	It's been a while since I've heard about that.
	Right, so in other words, when you were preparing, in this case, for these videos, that wasn't something you've heard about?
	It's been a while since you've heard about that?
	Well, the sourcing, I was tasked to prepare with the sourcing of videos, and the sourcing in this case Right,
	so as far as this thing about Pakistan and the sources of that, Your Honor, I would object under CPLR 3111 to evidence that doesn't go to compensatory damages.
	It's the section that says that we need to bifurcate the evidence that deals with punitive damages.
	But where are you?
	What rule are you putting me into?
	What do you want me to look at?
	The Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
	Oh, I thought you said LR. And I was like, what is that?
	I have like 30 books.
	I don't have them all memorized.
	Alright, where do you want me to look?
	Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Section 31. 31, thank you.
	Which part?
	Sub point 11.
	Sub point 11.
	Okay. 31.11.
	31.011?
	Yes.
	Is that new?
	My book doesn't have that.
	I will get it for you, Your Honor.
	I have a 31.10, 010, and that's it.
	It stops there.
	My objection, Your Honor, maybe this will make it easier, is that this evidence that is being elicited does not go to the issue of compensatory actual damages for the plaintiff.
	It is evidence that is solely designed to go to punitive damages and to attack The character and the reprehensibility of the conduct and therefore shouldn't be admitted at this point when we're supposed to be dealing with compensatory...
	Overruled.
	Your Honor, I would just request that you may be limited objections to evidence jury basis and not long-sweeping.
	Yes, please.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Ms. Karpova.
	We had seen in some of the last videos a tagline on the top of the screen that said the front line of truth journalism.
	But we see a different tagline on the top of this screen, right?
	Yes.
	And that says, Infowars.com, because there is a war on for your mind.
	That's right?
	That's been an Infowars slogan.
	In this video that we just watched, do you recall him saying that there was an email from Michael Bloomberg telling his people, get ready in the next 24 hours to capitalize on a shooting.
	Do you remember hearing that?
	He said something wrong on the lines.
	Yeah, and that basically saying that Michael Bloomberg knew 24 hours before Sandy Hook that they were going to stage an event, right?
	I'm not sure exactly what Alex meant by that.
	That's not something you can testify to.
	I'm not sure, sir.
	You would agree with me, it's pretty ridiculous to think that former mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, had an email that he sent out to his gun groups, his gun control groups.
	You would agree with me, it is ridiculous.
	That former Mayor Michael Bloomberg sent out an email to his gun groups telling them all, get ready in the next 24 hours to capitalize on a mass shooting.
	That is ridiculous.
	Do you agree with that?
	I can agree with that specific statement, sir.
	Okay.
	At the end, Mr. Jones references that face false mass shooting in Pakistan.
	You know that's about no positive, right?
	Okay.
	Mr. Posner complained about that, right?
	To you two?
	You're going to have to speak up a little bit.
	Are you referring to specific documents?
	No, I'm not.
	I'm asking you, do you know Mr. Posner complained about that story to YouTube?
	Do you know?
	I'm going to object again, Your Honor, to the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 41. I'll look.
	I'll look, but your objection is the same, right?
	Yes.
	Overall, do you have a running objection now?
	You may.
	Do you remember one of the videos you were supposed to get prepared for?
	It was on February 12, 2015. It says, title unknown.
	That's correct.
	Because you didn't give us this video, right?
	We had to go find it.
	And we don't know its title.
	Did you understand that?
	That's what I assume.
	Yeah, we got lucky.
	We found it.
	And I want to play a clip for this video for you now.
	This is something you reviewed for your preparation, correct?
	Well, can you show it to me to refresh my memory?
	Well, let's ask you this.
	Are you now telling me that there are videos in the plaintiff's petition that, despite the court's instruction, you did not review?
	I just don't remember which videos I reviewed, which are available to me to review.
	Okay, well, if it's on that list, you should have reviewed it, right?
	Again, sir, videos that were available to me, I did review.
	Okay.
	Can you tell me if the videos that were available to you, that were made available to you, are all the videos in plaintiff's petition?
	Do you know that?
	Are you referring to all these videos?
	Well, I'm asking what you prepared on Ms. Carpolo.
	I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly you prepared.
	If the videos that were provided to you by whoever provided them to you to get prepared, were they all the videos in plaintiff's petition?
	Did you do anything to verify that?
	I'm not sure, sir.
	Okay.
	Well, I'd like to play you a clip from this video, and I assume you've seen it and prepared on it, but we're going to play it, okay?
	And we're going to play right now from February 12, 2015. As we stated, the title is unknown.
	But we're going to play clip 14C. Do I know the whole story?
	No, I don't know the whole story.
	Am I being lied to?
	Absolutely I'm being lied to.
	Absolutely.
	And then my reporters simply say, look, here's the BBC and the London Telegraph and the Pakistani TV all showing this guy's reportedly dead son that he rested And then this group comes and says that we violated their copyright and then claim Fox News.
	So they're using a Fox News ID to trigger the suspension of...
	The Alex Jones Channel.
	If they're successful, they will shut down videos, thousands of videos and reports, and millions of dollars of work.
	Let's go to the About page on the Alex Jones Channel, one of the many channels we have.
	And by the way, they're all linked together, so they take one down, they take them all down.
	Mr. Jones' concern was that complaints from the parents could potentially shut down the company's YouTube channel, right?
	One of the concerns in this video...
	Correct.
	That's in the clip we just saw.
	I'd like to play for you now clip 14D. And I take these attacks as an opportunity.
	And this is just one that I'm mentioning.
	I mean, look at this fraudulently filed copyright claim.
	And it may not even be this group.
	It may be someone else fraudulently doing it in their name.
	Because I don't want to just sit here and say things about people.
	I want to be careful about I mean, we're not even saying in that headline that children weren't killed.
	We get criticized for trying to be open about this because we can't prove it one way or the other.
	So, they take down our video, photo of a child killed in Sandy Hook, shows a Pakistan school shooting, David Knight shows, we're going to show the video next hour, play it, BBC articles and BBC news stills and different rallies showing that One thing we can see at the end of this clip is that Mr. Jones
	decided that when a parent complained, he was going to put that parent's name and email out to his millions of people.
	Do you agree on that?
	What does public record when the complaint is sent?
	I want you to listen to the question and answer the question that you're asking.
	Mr. Reynold will ask you questions later, but right now you have to answer Mr. Fangston's questions.
	This was a notification from YouTube since Infowars.
	Do you see that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And not sent to the public since Infowars.
	Do you agree with that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And Infowars decided to take this notification that they had been given from YouTube and put it on the air with Lenny Posner's name and his email address.
	That happened, right?
	With the claimants, yes.
	Yes, okay.
	And also, Mr. Jones says during this that I want to be careful.
	Did you hear him say that?
	I did.
	That's not the truth.
	He's being the exact opposite throughout all of these videos we're seeing, correct?
	Objection, Your Honor.
	She's not here to judge whether he's being truthful or not.
	So what's the legal objection, Mr. Reynolds?
	Calls for speculation.
	All right.
	Overruled.
	What's the question again?
	Can I have that right back?
	Yes.
	Thank you, Mr. Block.
	Question.
	That's not the truth.
	he's been the exact opposite throughout all of these videos we're seeing, correct?
	No, I think he's trying to be as careful as he can.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	He said in there, we're not even saying in that headline that children weren't killed.
	You heard him say that?
	Yes.
	Yeah, in fact, what he's saying, didn't the headline say, Noah Posner died twice?
	Right?
	That's what it said.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I want to play you another clip.
	You understand, like we talked earlier, that Mr. Jones will sometimes have people who make YouTube videos who've been featured on the show.
	He'll sometimes invite the people who made those YouTube videos that were featured.
	He'll invite them on the show to talk to them.
	That's happened before.
	I would say occasionally.
	Okay, well, I want to show you something like that, right?
	Let's play clip 14H of Mr. Jones talking to people who were trying to get their YouTube videos on his show.
	Just a second.
	Can you approach it?
	Sure.
	That's okay.
	We'll get that figured out.
	Okay.
	And if we can become revamped and visited.
	I mean, if you want to admit it now, that's fine, but I don't have it on my list.
	Yeah, did you have any of it?
	I had it on my list.
	It's 14.
	Is it part of PBX 14?
	Correct.
	I just want to make sure it's been disclosed to defendants.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Alright then, that's fine.
	Just before you start it, I just want to explain to the jury, sometimes you'll see exhibits have to be admitted in court, and sometimes we've agreed in advance that they're already admitted, but I keep track of everything that's done, so that's all that's happening right now.
	Alright, can we go ahead and play now clip 14-H? What do you think of us being censored?
	What's been happening to you?
	I can tell you lots about Lenny.
	This man is something that you've never seen before.
	He's got a group of trolls, and if you don't mind, I'll just go ahead and call them out.
	These people would be keeping...
	Well, listen, hold on, hold on.
	I don't want to give these people any attention.
	I'm going to have to get with lawyers on this and deal with this.
	But I understand that, I mean, if they're trying to shut up, I can't even put up a video showing that he has put up a copyright strike against me without him copywriting strikes.
	My information and they gave it to one of his trolls in his network and they went and they looked up all my information and put up a whole blog post about me and my daughter.
	It's what this troll network has done.
	These people are vile.
	And Lanny, if you're listening, your day is coming, my friend.
	It is coming.
	Wow, I mean, this sounds like a war is going on.
	I think they made a major mistake involving us because we were basically showing both sides and getting criticized by both groups for it.
	Oh, I totally agree.
	They don't know what they bit off.
	Go ask I don't want to leave the First Amendment alone.
	But I mean, it does show that how would they claim it's a Fox News copyright violation?
	There's no Fox News on there.
	It's a news article.
	I mean, how do you do that?
	It's just, it's amazing.
	They have two different email addresses they used.
	I noticed you said that for this claim they used the honor at gmail.
	The other one that they used, I won't say it, but I'll tell you off air if you want to know what that one is off air.
	Well, I'm not somebody to mess with, and I understand that they can use children or whatever, and then they'll say the First Amendment's bad, but I've got to defend the First Amendment, and it's just wild to get into this subject.
	We've got all this stuff happening worldwide, all these moves against the First Amendment going on.
	It's pretty hardcore.
	So we're gonna have our news director in here with our news anchor to talk about this because they're trying to shut us down.
	During that clip, Mr. Jones said about the parents who were complaining, they made a major mistake involving us.
	That's what he said?
	I'm not sure who Alex is referring to that made a mistake.
	He's talking about this network of people, right, who complain?
	Well, I think the caller is concerned here with the trolls that he's being attacked with, as well as his family, and that's what he's raising with Alex.
	To my understanding from this clip is that he's saying he doesn't appreciate, you know, having been entangled in this by the trolls who, again, posted to the website perhaps.
	You make sure I understand.
	This caller who had been posting videos with murdered parents' children and calling them fake, who had now been getting complaints from Mr. Posner, that person was mad that he got entangled in this.
	Is that what you're telling me?
	I'm not sure what this caller was doing.
	Okay.
	Well, let's talk about Mr. Jones then.
	Because he said they made a major mistake involving us.
	You agree that's what he said?
	He did say that.
	Okay.
	And here's the other thing he said that I wanted to ask you about.
	Alex Jones said, I'm not somebody to mess with.
	That's true, isn't it?
	He did say that.
	And it's true, right?
	You don't want to mess with Alex Jones.
	I'm not sure what he meant by that.
	I think he means that he's not going to stop, he's not even going to shut up.
	That's his weapon, that's his speech.
	Let's see how he uses that weapon.
	Let's check that out in the next clip.
	Melissa, can you play for us clip PVX-14I? I've got an article here from a guy, I think was our last caller, Michael.
	He's been getting all kinds of grief from Mr. Posner.
	Anything that comes out, social media shut down due to Sandy Hook false copyrights.
	What's interesting is they list the address for the Honor Network in Boca Raton, Florida.
	You look up the address on that, which says 908 North Dixie Highway.
	It is the address for a women's clothing store.
	And a U-Haul rental place.
	U-Haul neighborhood dealer.
	So here's the 908 North Dixie Highway.
	There's no suite, but it's got two different buildings listed that address.
	One is a J&J shop, women's clothing store, and you go to the other one, same address, U-Haul neighborhood dealer.
	Now you go to their About Honor network, I can go to this one right here.
	Guys, you can leave the camera right there.
	Honor Network right there.
	It says they're in Newtown, Connecticut.
	But you go to that address, it's a U-Haul.
	UPS store.
	I'm sorry, it's a UPS store.
	Same address, Main Street, Newtown, Connecticut.
	It's a UPS storm.
	That was Mr. Robert during talking, right?
	Yes.
	OK.
	So in terms of Mr. Jones using his speech he has, which you say is his weapon, when a parent of murdered children complain, the way Mr. Jones used that speech as a weapon is by showing literal maps to the way Mr. Jones used that speech as a weapon is by showing literal maps to where they picked up their That's what he did with his weapon of speech, right?
	I wouldn't agree with that statement, sir.
	Okay.
	Well, let's just make this really simple.
	We just saw, and the jury saw too, after these complaints and after he said, I'm not somebody to mess with, the next thing that happens on InfoWars later in that broadcast is them putting up literal maps to where these people pick up their men.
	That happened, right?
	Well, I think what Rob Jewel is doing here is looking up the business name or organization name that's filed a complaint and researching into it.
	Yeah, you know a father, Lenny Posner, had created a name called Honor Network to try to be a little more anonymous when he was making these complaints.
	Did you know that?
	We know that now.
	And you all knew Lenny Posner was running the Honor Network.
	network they showed it earlier in the book, right?
	Ms. Carproff, we saw his email address, right?
	The honor network is the address.
	You saw Leni Posner's name.
	Yes.
	And you know down there in Florida, what he showed, that's when Leni Posner was picking up his mail.
	I'm not sure if that address was public, but the way they were able to find it, the organization's address.
	That's what he showed on air.
	Objection, non-responsive.
	Sustained.
	They showed maps to where Lenny Posner was picking up his mail, correct?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	One thing we definitely know, I'm not even saying you don't know if it was public.
	It was definitely public after that, wasn't it?
	To millions of people.
	Well, assuming it was public, that's how he was able to find it, and the longer we're on out is what you're showing.
	Ms. Karpova, can I please again remind you, do not assume anything.
	You don't know for a fact where that came from, do you?
	I'm trying my best to answer your question.
	Would you please then agree with me that when I'm asking you a question and you're testifying under oath about the truth, can you please just not assume?
	Will you make that agreement with me?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	You understand this trial is very important, right?
	Very important.
	Okay.
	And so I definitely want to make sure that you're not saying anything that you cannot say under oath.
	Do you understand that?
	Absolutely.
	Okay.
	I want to show you another clip from this.
	Let me show you a very short clip at the end of this discussion that they're having.
	PVX 14J. Do you think, you know, if they had this organization, they would have some sort of headquarters where they would be setting up a memorial?
	Well, we'll just start investigating that, and I guess I'm going to have to probably go on up to Newtown.
	I'm going to have to probably go investigate Florida as well.
	So Mr. Jones says, essentially, because Mr. Dew is confused, that Mr. Posner is using a UPS box, and that he doesn't have a memorial set up or something.
	He's confused because of I'm not sure if I look goody with that statement.
	Okay, that's fine.
	Let's move into 2015 a little bit later.
	Let's go to March 2015. In March 4, 2015, there's another video, right?
	Yes.
	Okay, and that is called New Bombshell Sandy Hook Information Inbound, right?
	Yes.
	And I know in the last few videos where we've been seeing Mr. Jones talk about the incident Kids didn't die.
	In these last few videos, we haven't been seeing a lot of Halbig.
	But in this video here about the bombshell information, this is Mr. Halbig we're going to be talking about, right?
	Let's look at the video.
	Let's go ahead and show you a clip from that as PVX-15B. Bombshell info you're breaking today.
	Bombshell info.
	Go over the main points of Sandy Hook as a top safety expert while you questioned it.
	There you are, successful, making a lot of money, running nationwide programs, playing golf, you know, pretty much quasi-retired.
	Why would you do all this?
	Well, because it didn't add up.
	I know you've talked about that on air.
	I'm not putting words in your mouth.
	But then the latest bombshell you just dropped...
	You're saying, because we know the school suddenly reopened, had been closed, and then they tore it down, the place was falling apart in photos and videos we saw, didn't look like a real school.
	Then you add everything together, looks like a prop, a drill.
	Did they kill real kids?
	Maybe, maybe not.
	Why didn't they call helicopters?
	I mean, I keep repeating this, it just doesn't add up.
	Wolfgang, what's the new bombshell info?
	Well, the new bombshell is info is that the subpoenas Sandy Hook,
	that school, was not an operating school, and I can tell you that for being a school Alright, Ms. Carpoga, first of all, at this point in 2015, InfoWars had already had possession of the state's attorney's release of the official Sandy Hook files and report since 2013. For all of that time since up into this video, it has had those materials.
	Do you agree with that?
	I can't agree with that specifically, Mr. Well, didn't we just put, at the beginning of your testimony, these requests for admissions that you were involved with in the discovery, and we went through them all and see that it was admitted that the company did in fact possess that report in December of 2013. Do you remember we did that?
	Correct, but if you're referring to who at the company had them on We know that the information was in the company's possession as of 2013. And now we have in this video Mr. Jones saying the place was falling apart in the photos and the videos that we saw didn't look like a real school.
	What I want to ask you Ms. Karpova is in getting prepared to testify, in getting prepared to be a corporate representative, is it your belief that if we were to show this jury Those photos and those videos taken inside of Sandy Hook that day, do you believe it would show that it doesn't look like a real school, that it's falling apart?
	Do you know?
	The photos that Alex was referring to, I believe so, yes.
	Okay, so you think...
	I'm gonna tell you we're going to.
	You think when the jury sees the photos of the inside of the school, and they see the video of the inside of the school, they're going to think this was not an operating school.
	I just said the photos and the videos that Alex saw that he was referring to.
	What are those?
	I'm not sure.
	And you were responsible for the sourcing and the research on plaintiff's petition.
	I couldn't find them.
	That's something that Alex had done his research on.
	You didn't even talk to Alex, did you?
	Didn't you testify yesterday in getting prepared for your corporate representative to testify at all these topics?
	You didn't even talk to Atlas.
	Specifically not for that.
	And you're telling me that all this stuff is coming right out of his brain, right?
	Right?
	That's how he normally does it.
	He does previous research at home or right there.
	Do you think it's fair?
	That these parents who now have their day in court and were asking for this information, and when you were ordered to prepare yourself for this information, that you didn't, that you didn't even talk to Mr. Jones, do you think that's fair to them?
	Objections would be relevant, Your Honor, of discovery issues that have happened in this case?
	You know what?
	I'm going to sustain the objection for now.
	But if we can't get answers to the things she was supposed to be able to answer, I might allow it later.
	I want to show you another clip from this March 4th, 2015 video called New Bombshell Sandy Hook Information Headbound.
	We played a clip, 15.
	Well, they're obviously looking for a big PR bonanza, and then to bring in all the actors to break down and cry.
	And I think we're so stupid they even use the same actors as different people.
	I mean, all I know is we've all seen the footage, and maybe they're real parents, whatever, but when you've got somebody laughing and smelling and going, watch this, and then walking over and going, and then starting crying for the cameras, I mean, it's, what about the blue screen and Anderson Cooper's nose disappearing?
	Absolutely.
	The blue screen, it's everywhere, whether it's at the firehouse, whether it's Anderson Cooper, absolutely.
	They use that as a technology.
	It's like a movie set.
	They did In fact, can we pull up the clip of the Attorney General saying we literally brainwashed the public?
	Ms. Garbova, there was a lot said there, but what I really want to ask you about is this.
	I'll write it down here.
	Mr. Jones said, and then they bring in all the actors to break down and cry, and they think we're so stupid that they use the same actors as different people.
	You heard that?
	Yes.
	What people were supposedly played the different people that were supposedly played by the same actor?
	Who was that?
	It's hard to say who he's referring to here.
	I don't know.
	It would definitely be hard to say if you didn't talk to Mr. Jones or prepare me, right?
	I had to prepare the best I could.
	If I'm Mayor, Your Honor, and I think that she's not here as a court's representative.
	She gave the deposition as one.
	If they want to play the deposition, this is inappropriate.
	She wasn't supposed to be here as a corporate representative.
	Are you objecting to this last question?
	Yes.
	I'm objecting to this last question, this entire line of questioning about corporate representatives.
	Well, you're actually objecting to a sidebar, and I'm also saying the objection to a sidebar.
	I understand your answer.
	Ask your question.
	I understand.
	And if I, again, if I could revisit that, hopefully with the amount of speed.
	Yes.
	- Yes.
	Let's talk about another clip in this video, okay?
	And I want you to pay attention to what Mr. Halberg is saying in this video.
	We're gonna hear from Mr. Halpern.
	This is clip 15G.
	Can we play that? - You have no reason to be doing this to be going public.
	I mean, I would imagine you've lost a lot of business.
	And you tell that to my wife.
	I am about to be kicked out of my own house after being married 39 years.
	Alex, I'm about to lose my family because I'm simply asking the questions that you and your stations are looking at.
	And I'm asking you right now.
	I'm asking all your listeners.
	It's all gone.
	Support InfoWars.
	Become part of the Warriors.
	We need Al.
	We need this show.
	We need the truth.
	If you find it in your heart to donate a few dollars to our legal funds, let me tell you, we have them.
	We have the lawsuits filed, we are closed, but we can't do it without people helping me.
	I'm too old for this, but I do need help.
	The big thing is, support InfoWard, because if we don't have your voice, nobody's going to hear the truth.
	Well folks, you need to donate, and briefings are going to break.
	Tell us the specifics of where it was filed, what's going on with the lawsuit.
	Well, it's filed here in Seminole County because all my businesses, Children's Safety Institute, the National Institute, this is my home, this is where I live.
	And so instead of going to Connecticut where everything is crooked, we're going to come in the back door and therefore we filed it.
	It's in the Seminole County court system.
	The judge, I mean the female judge, she saw what we're talking about and she did not hesitate issuing those ten subpoenas across the country.
	And they've been served, and we're now just waiting for all of the responses.
	Wow, well this is big national news.
	Ms. Garpova, I want to ask you something very specific about what Mr. Jones said, or I'm sorry, about what Mr. Halbick said.
	Did you hear the portion where he was sort of praising InfoWars?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And in that clip, he said, "Support InfoWars, because if we don't have your voice, nobody's going to hear the truth." That's what Mr. Halbig said?
	He did say that.
	Mr. Halbig doesn't have a media company, does he?
	I don't believe so.
	He doesn't appear in front of an audience of millions, does he?
	Unless he's on Infowars, right?
	I believe he's been on other shows before as well.
	Where has he appeared in front of millions of people in this car photo?
	I'm not sure.
	I'm not sure right now.
	Because you would agree with me that nobody in this country, nobody who runs a media empire, With millions of viewers, would ever put Wolfgang Halbig on its shows other than InfoWars, right?
	I don't know that.
	But according to Mr. Halbig, if InfoWars isn't out there, if InfoWars isn't helping Mr. Halbig get his message out, nobody's going to hear the truth, according to Mr. Halbig.
	That's what he said.
	But that's something that pretty much every guest that we have on is saying may also ask for donations.
	I bet.
	I bet those people want that audience.
	And in fact, that's what was happening here, is even Mr. Jones was saying folks need to donate, right?
	Yes.
	Mr. Jones was helping raise money to let Mr. Halbig do all the things that we've been seeing him do, right?
	Well, Alex just likes to help the little guy because he doesn't, at the time in his opinion, Alex always states that it's according to him, it's his opinion, that Wolfgang is not getting that big national attention and he was trying to help him out.
	Let me make sure I understand you.
	Alex likes to support the little guy.
	Right?
	That's what you said?
	Yes.
	And in this case, the little guy is the guy who is sending harassing emails to the parents of murdered children.
	That's right?
	Again, I do not agree with your assessment that it was a malicious harassing email.
	Okay.
	Let's play another clip from that same episode in this.
	The new bombshell Sandy Hook information inbound on March 4, 2015. Let's play clip 15 now.
	You say this is hurting your family, I bet your wife's sick of it.
	I mean, the evidence is there.
	It's not just that I believe you're doing a good job because of the fact that Well, you know, my wife is like millions of others, Alex.
	She's refusing to actually read it and look at it, and I think that's what's happening to millions across the country.
	They were touched emotionally, and they were brainwashed by the national news media.
	They were traumatized.
	Yeah, they were traumatized, and that's where we are, and we need to show them that They lied to us that this was a conspiracy.
	Well, I just commend you folks.
	You should certainly be praying for Wolfgang.
	You should go to his website and support him.
	SandyHookJustice.com.
	We salute you.
	We'll get updates soon.
	SandyHookJustice.com.
	Folks, stand with him.
	He's fighting for all of us and for the Second Amendment.
	Thank you, Alex.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I heard there Mr. Jones talking about how they traumatized us, the people who did Sandy Hook.
	Traumatosis.
	Did you hear that?
	Yes.
	And did you hear in the earlier clip when Mr. Jones and the public were talking about how this event was calculated to inflict emotional distress on the public?
	Do you remember what I'm saying?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Is it, I want to know, is it the company's current position that Neil and Scarlett were involved in fakery, are not real parents, and inflicted emotional distress on the country?
	Is that the company's position?
	Objection, she's not a corporate representative.
	I'll ask it to her personally.
	Wait, did you ask it at the deposition?
	I don't know.
	Yes, but I'm not sure I want to go into that right now.
	But I'll ask it to you personally.
	From your personal perspective, what do you think?
	Could you repeat that again?
	Yeah, do you believe?
	Neil, I'm sorry.
	Right here.
	Do you believe these two people are fake parents I don't believe that.
	And I believe that their grief is being used.
	By who?
	By Mr. Jones?
	You're their enemy because you're lying to them.
	and using their grief to make bank put the eyes on lawfare.
	And I think this reasonable jury here will see that the truth is on our side in this case.
	They'll see that the things we're seeing here today are reasonable, good things to do, huh?
	Is that what they'll see?
	They will see that Alex meant everything from his heart and he never claimed something for sure.
	It was his opinion and he stated it and every time he was trying to do honest investigative research to the best of his ability and that's his job.
	And he takes it very seriously.
	That's why people love him.
	I remember you were also saying that you, in attempting to meet your responsibilities as the corporate representative, you did the best you could, right?
	You remember you saying that?
	Yes, I did.
	And the best you could do To prepare for the things that Alex Jones said that were from him didn't even include talking to Alex Jones.
	That was the best you could do.
	Is that what you're telling us?
	I did the best that I was advised to do, and I did that.
	You were advised not to speak to Mr. Jones then, weren't you?
	I wasn't advised to- Objection, Your Honor.
	I think that we're getting into attorney-client privilege stuff.
	She's not here as a corporate representative.
	The questions are in there.
	I would like to move on from the advice.
	Sure.
	Absolutely.
	Let's move on to the next slide.
	I want to...
	You remember we were talking in this video, or they were talking in this video, about Mr. Halbig bringing a lawsuit in Seminole County, Florida?
	Yes, he did.
	Okay.
	And you understand that the company got information from an outsider.
	That told them that there was a good chance Mr. Halbig might be lying about that entire legal proceeding.
	Do you remember us talking about that?
	Yes.
	I'd like to show that to you.
	This, Your Honor, is going to be 62.
	Object, you're saying your own?
	Can we give you a copy, Your Honor?
	I have a copy.
	Oh, okay.
	And our response is not on the truth of the matter, sir.
	It's a warning to the company or something they needed to investigate.
	I will not object to it on that.
	I'm sorry?
	If they're not offering it for the truth, then I'm fine with that.
	All right, then 62 is admitted.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	I'm going to hand you with the mark of the 62.
	- 62.
	Melissa, would you mind putting 62 up for me?
	Let's go into the very toppy mill.
	The one that's just one line long.
	Can we bring that up?
	Now, Ms. Karpova, there's a first email here from Nico, right?
	That's an InfoWars producer at the time.
	Yes.
	And that is to Rob Dew And again, we're not sure what his job function was in 2015, but definitely a high production person inside of Infowars.
	Again, I'm not sure what his job was.
	Right, but we can agree, and have agreed in this courtroom several times now, he was a high production employee at Infowars.
	Yes.
	Yes, okay.
	And he is emailing to Rob saying, here are some comments on Hal Big's last interview from a lawsuit, right?
	Yes.
	All right, let's pull up that second email.
	It says, and you can go down this email with me.
	Yeah.
	Okay, great.
	It says, Madam or sir, I am in my final semester of law school.
	I listened to the Wolfgang Halbig video and some significant alarm bells went off.
	I also wrote on the YouTube page, but I copy and paste here.
	Okay, so just so I get this straight, starting at 3130, he filed his lawsuit in Seminole County Court in Florida, not federal court in Florida, but in state court.
	There is a legal requirement called standing.
	He does not have standing to sue in Seminole County Court.
	He was not a party to the shooting in any fashion.
	There is also a concept called jurisdiction.
	Either the man is lying or the judge is insane.
	A Florida county-level judge would not have jurisdiction for any reason other than a contract, tort, or crime issue directly involving Mr. Albert.
	Something is completely wrong here.
	Had he said in the federal district of Florida, or whatever district it might be if the state is split, that may at least be plausible.
	This is completely insane and cannot go anywhere but into the trash can.
	No standing, no subject matter jurisdiction, no personal jurisdiction.
	Two cents from a third year law student who is legally current in his education.
	This man seems to be grasping and stretching.
	No judge in their right mind would do such a thing as he describes.
	Here's an example.
	Imagine there's a crime in Las Vegas and the criminal kills himself.
	There's no loan whatsoever that would allow Alex or anyone else to file suit in San Antonio for anything regarding the crime in Las Vegas.
	There's no claim that could be made in Texas for something that happened in Nevada.
	It's a rule.
	Signed, R. Darren Blumfield.
	William S. Boyd's School of Law.
	I read that email correctly?
	Apparently.
	Okay.
	And so Nico had actually brought this to Rob's attention, right?
	Yes.
	Okay, so the company was on notice that there might be some significant problems with the things that we're paying how they were saying.
	That's what this email was saying.
	Correct.
	Niko has forwarded this email to Rob.
	Do you want to do it afterwards?
	I don't know.
	Objection on your response?
	Staying.
	Ms. Karpova, I'm not asking you about what happened at the forwarding.
	I'm asking you, InfoWars had received an email in its possession that had been discussed among, had been forwarded among these production employees that suggested that things that Mr. Hobbid was saying in his interview were insane.
	Right?
	Yes, it is.
	Okay.
	I want to go back to the day that Mr. Halby came on the show right before that.
	And that was the video we were just watching, March 4th, 2015. So I'm going to go back to the process of how we got on that show.
	Now I think you know that in making arrangements for getting on the show and those sort of things run through a producer, in this case Nico, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	All right, I'm going to show her 61.
	There you go.
	I'm going to show her 61.
	Okay.
	Plan of 61 is admitted.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	I've handed the words to the mark of 61. Your Honor.
	I'm saying no objection.
	No objection subject to my prior objection.
	We're going back to 41 of the civil practice moments.
	Which is overall?
	Melissa, can you bring up 61 for me?
	Let's start at the bottom, Ema.
	Wolfgang is writing to Nico here, right?
	Yes.
	- You know who Nathaniel was?
	Somebody at Inport, right? - I don't recognize that name.
	In any case, Nico's the producer he's working with that day, right?
	It appears so.
	Okay.
	And he says, Nico, the picture of the Sand and Hook Elementary School choir is one of the keys.
	And then he says, other pictures are great for discussion.
	These are the CT, and I believe it's probably Connecticut, crime pictures.
	And he signs it wolf.
	Read that correctly?
	Yes.
	And then let's go to the next email.
	Nico responds, and he says, "Got the Super Bowl picture." Thank you for sending.
	Will you be calling on Skype at 1 p.m.
	Eastern Time?
	How long will you be available for the interview today thanks Nico.
	I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	So, he's thanking me for sending the Super Bowl picture.
	You know what that is, right?
	I believe I've seen it before, and this isn't specifically for the picture that he's thinking, this is just the materials we think of these guests that comes on and he says something else that's wrong.
	Objection and I'm response.
	Ms. Korpova, I am only asking you, all I am asking you, you have seen the Super Bowl.
	You've showed it to me before.
	Right, we've talked about it before, haven't we?
	Yes.
	Okay, and you testified your feelings about it, didn't you?
	You cannot recall specifically what you said.
	Go to the top of your head.
	And then Wolfgang replies for how long he can be on the show.
	As long as you and Alex can put up Wolfgang.
	Read that correctly?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now you understood.
	Well first of all, let's start this way.
	Super Bowl 2013. It's about one month after the Sandy Hook shooting.
	You're aware that a choir of Sandy Hook school children was sent to that Super Bowl to sing during the halftime performance of that choir?
	Yes.
	And you understand that Mr. Halbig believed that that choir of school children who sang at the Super Bowl were actually the children who were claimed to be murdered at Sandy Hook.
	You knew that?
	Yes.
	that Super Bowl picture that's something I want to look at now you're not going to provide the witness exhibit 43 all right Alright.
	Melissa, can you put 43 on the screen? can you put 43 on the screen?
	It says, ten Sandy Hook children found alive and well.
	Right?
	Yes.
	You see this name?
	Yes.
	Jesse Lewis?
	Yes.
	You know that's their son, right?
	Yes.
	Well...
	Jesse Lewis, the name is their son.
	You know that, that's their son's name.
	Yes.
	This is not their son.
	Right?
	Wolfgang sent this picture to InfoWars before he went on the show on March 4th, 2015. Right?
	Yes.
	And Nico said, got the Super Bowl picture, thanks for Cindy.
	That's what he said, right?
	Yes.
	Ms. Karpova, looking at this fiction, it's true.
	Your personal opinion as to whether this was created by a sane, rational human being, you have no personal opinion about that, do you?
	I have a personal opinion.
	Okay, do you remember testifying to me back in December?
	Was it corporate rep?
	Do you remember giving the deposition?
	I do.
	And you were under oath in that deposition?
	Yes.
	94 14 and you're 94 14 you I want to talk to you about
	your deposition I'm going to bring you this copy so we can read it together, okay?
	Yes.
	Can I move this?
	Is that okay?
	All right.
	Now wait, I'm going to have to reach over here.
	All right.
	I want you to look here, and what I'm going to read to you, okay?
	And you see it's highlighted, but it's kind of gray, okay?
	Yes.
	And I'm asking this question to answer, all right?
	Let's go over.
	Will you admit, sitting here right now, This was not created by a rational, sane human being.
	Or are you going to tell this jury that this is created by a rational, sane human being?
	Can you tell me what your answer on your oath was?
	My answer on your oath was, I don't have an opinion, a personal opinion on it.
	But since I have developed an opinion, that's my truthful answer right now.
	Okay, so back six months ago or so, when you were being deposed, when you were shown this picture, you didn't have a personal opinion at all.
	But in the intervening time, before you've come to this witness stand in this court in this trial, now you have a personal opinion?
	tell me now this car poker was this created by a sane rational human being in your opinion may I ask your question No, you may not.
	So, I will answer your question.
	It's just this particular screenshot is referring to Wolfgang Halbert?
	Yes.
	So this, I don't believe this is a, he sent this picture, but he didn't make this picture.
	I'm not sure if he made this picture, which is why I can't comment.
	Listen to the question.
	The truth is, you don't know that Wolfgang Halbert didn't make that photo.
	You don't have that knowledge.
	Don't, no.
	Okay, so please appreciate it if you didn't testify about them, if you don't know them.
	Okay?
	Yes.
	Okay, I want you to tell them this jury that Wolfgang Hoppe didn't make this photo, if you don't know them.
	Was this photo made by a sane, rational human being?
	Do you have an opinion on it?
	Yes.
	What is your opinion?
	I think this photo was made by a person who was deeply disturbed at what happened, and they had a message in mind.
	So the answer would be partially no to your question.
	Okay.
	Do you...
	Do you sitting here today, do you understand how long it was to encourage this man's delusions like this?
	Do you understand that?
	we did the best of the time but it wasn't something that was done on purpose.
	According to you, if the source sent you this picture, it would cause you to have a lot of hope because you wouldn't want to think that the kids are dead.
	You'd rather they be alive, right?
	If it was my personal preference, I would much rather think that the kids actually were involved in some kind of operation with the government.
	That way they'd still be alive.
	What do you think would be happening to those kids if they were actually being used by the satanic globalists for an occult ritual where they cart them out for the Super Bowl and put them in our face and taunt us With the fact that we actually faked that, and here are the real murdered children who are still in the possession of the satanic globalists.
	At the end of their performance, when they leave the Super Bowl, do you think they're about to have a good time?
	I can't agree with any of what you just said.
	My only statement is that I would much rather think that these children are alive as opposed to have been shot the way they were.
	Okay.
	Let's move forward to March 10th, 2015, okay?
	I want to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 63. My
	legal objection is that this is an email from.
	You're going to object.
	You can't talk about what it is.
	You know that.
	This is not an email.
	I object to the honor relevance to an email that wasn't sent to InfoWars staff.
	Alright, so you're going to have to establish something.
	Sure.
	Same thing.
	Ms. Karpova.
	Bottom of this email.
	Read the numbers on the letter.
	Or the letters and numbers.
	The rights?
	Right here.
	Yes, ma'am.
	FSSTX-040027.
	And you understand that to mean that that means that this document was in the possession of free speech systems and that they turned it over to me in this lawsuit, right?
	Possession of this email.
	He was aware what is the content of this email.
	You agree?
	It was in the files that's labeled here.
	Your Honor, I'm going to admit this email.
	Any objection?
	Same objection, Your Honor.
	Overruled.
	Section 63 is admitted.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	All right, you have 63 in front of you right now?
	Yes.
	Okay, let's put that up on the screen, 763.
	That email is from Wolfgang Halbush.
	And as I believe we've talked about in your deposition, you see the email that's 2.
	I know you probably don't recognize that email address, but you see the introduction of it says "Scarlet." Yes.
	And we've come to know that Scarlet's, and I'm not going to say her email right now, but that is her email address, right?
	Okay, that's it.
	Okay?
	So this is Wolfgang Halbig writing to Scarlet on March 10th, 2015, right?
	Correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So, I'm going to read this for us.
	It says, Scarlet, it is just a matter of time, and all that money you have has to be returned.
	How could you even stop to buy your coffee?
	And you bought coffee for two other people.
	When you were on the news, tell everyone how you ran across that fire department parking lot.
	If you did, you would have spilled the coffee.
	Do some serious soul-searching, because the scam is up.
	Wolfgang.
	That's what the email says, right?
	Do you know Scarlett Lewis bought coffee that morning?
	I have no idea what incident he's referring to, what he means by that.
	One thing InfoWars did have in its possession, as early as 2015, is an email establishing that its guest, that it kept promoting to millions, was harassing Scarlett Lewis.
	That's one thing that happened.
	I can't fully agree with that statement.
	Is the reason you can't agree with that statement is because you're going to tell this jury and tell them that this email to the mother of a murdered little boy is not harassment?
	Is that what you're going to say?
	I'm going to say that I don't know what incident he's referring to.
	I don't know if he had personal contact with her.
	I have no idea about any of it.
	I can't comment on this context of the email.
	Okay, so I understand he don't know anything about the incident.
	I didn't know anything about the incident either.
	I'm sure nobody in this room knew anything about this incident.
	But I'm sure that at least some other people in this room have formed an opinion one way or another about whether that is harassing.
	I want to know yours.
	Is that harassing or not?
	I don't have a comment on that.
	For an hour and a half.
	Remember all of my instructions.
	No research, no conversation about anything that's happened in this courtroom.
	The rule is still in effect for all the witnesses and we'll be back at 1:30.
	Thank you.
	All rise!
	Sir and L, Mr. Franks, do either need me during this break?
	No, no.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I'll figure out how to do it.
	I appreciate you taking care of it.
	I would have never seen it.
	Yeah, I would have never seen it.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	I'm going to set up here.
	Joe, what do you want to set up?
	Set up.
	I'm noticing.
	Just keep going.
	I'll make sure here.
	All right, cool.
	I don't know.
	No, we're only in 25 to 15, right?
	That's right.
	I'm so sorry.
	All rise! All rise! All rise! All rise! All rise! All rise! All rise! All rise! All rise!
	All rise!
	All rise.
	All rise.
	Your Honor, my accurate.
	Yeah, I mean, it's 133.
	I think he knew when we were starting.
	You might be seated.
	Mr. Braxton, when you're ready.
	It's okay if they don't want to come to the room.
	It's 1.34.
	We are set to resume at 1.30.
	Ms. Carpova, before we broke, you were discussing an email from Wolfgang Halbeck harassing Ms. Lewis, correct?
	There was an email from Mr. Halbeck to Ms. Carpova.
	Okay.
	I'm calling at y'all.
	I'm standing back here There's some air vent noise.
	I know the jurors too.
	If I can just ask you again if you can try to speak up so I can make sure I can hear you.
	Mr. Halbick to Scarlett.
	Yes, before the break, we were discussing the email from Wolfgang here, a signature to the aggressive Scarlett.
	Okay.
	And that was an email harassing Ms. Scarlett, saying that she was committing a scam, right?
	I don't know what Mr. Halbick's intent was here.
	Well, regardless of what his intent was, if you have a man who's accusing the mother of a murdered son Of engaging in a scam, regardless of whatever he intended, that's harassing, isn't it?
	I'm sorry, I can't comment on that.
	Okay.
	64. Subject to my...
	Prior objection, no.
	To your running objection, you mean?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	So, your running objection, which is overruled, then it's agreed, so Petitioner 64 is admitted, Your Honor.
	Ms. Karpov, I'm going to show you what's been marked Exhibit 64. Yes, it'd be herself.
	Leanne's an InfoWars employee, right?
	At that time.
	Leanne McAdoo, she did anchor work in reporting for InfoWars?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Louis S., we talked about him earlier, right?
	Yes.
	He handles a lot of the website and social media stuff.
	He runs that department of InfoWars, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And on this list, we see that there are a list of topics, correct?
	Yes.
	And it says the subject is playlist ideas, right?
	Correct.
	Okay?
	And this is April 16th, 2015. You realize we are now in the third year after San Diego.
	Do you understand that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And these topics are with importance high for playlist ideas are the following.
	Vaccines, police states, Alex Jones Show, Second Amendment, Rance, Celebrity, Border, TSA, which takes transportation, safety administration, Geoengineering, Chemtrails, GMO, Resistance.
	Boston bombing.
	Sandy Hook.
	Victories winning.
	Good news.
	Correct?
	Correct.
	Okay, so just a couple of these that might not be familiar to the jury.
	Chemtrails is the idea that there are aircraft flying through the country releasing chemicals into the air that have some sort of malignant effect on the people of this country.
	Correct?
	Not necessarily.
	Okay, but that's one thing that chemtrails means.
	And that's something Mr. Jones has talked about, right?
	These airplanes are leaving these contrails by spraying out these chemicals that are used for population control and all this sort of stuff?
	I don't remember the specific reference that you're implying here to the broadcast that he's mentioned this, but I know that's something that people have talked about in general as being part of that.
	Okay.
	And it says GMO, that's genetically modified organisms?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And Mr. Jones has been selling his products on his website.
	Talks about the idea of genetically modified organisms making us unsafe, right?
	Yes.
	And he sells products that will make you safer, right?
	I wouldn't say that.
	I agree with that.
	Okay.
	And then the other thing we can see is that it's been almost three years since the Sandy Hook shooting and InfoWars is still proposing Sandy Hook for its playlist ideas.
	That's correct.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You go to your list of videos.
	Is that still in front of you?
	Yes, it is.
	Okay.
	Can you look at May 29th, 2015?
	Did Infowars publish any videos at that time?
	Yes.
	On May 29th, 2015, did Infowars publish a video or multiple videos?
	Three videos.
	Okay.
	Three videos on that day.
	The first one is titled, Sandy Hook, The Lies Keep Growing.
	No, I believe that's the middle one.
	Okay, you may have in a different order.
	Let me give you all three titles.
	You can tell me if these are the three titles.
	How does that sound?
	Yes.
	You have Sandy Hook, The Lies Keep Growing, School Administrator Exposes Sandy Hook, Stonewall, and New Sandy Hook Questions Arise from FOIA Hearing.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And InfoWars asked reporter Dan Badandi to go cover I'm not sure who asked Dan Badani.
	Okay.
	But certainly, InfoWars doesn't allow outsiders to tell its reporters and send them on assignments.
	If Dan Badani's going to Newtown to record things to be playing on InfoWars, somebody on InfoWars told them to do that, right?
	That's how that would happen.
	I wouldn't agree with that.
	Okay, we'll see.
	Just a couple days later, June 4th, 2015. There's a video there?
	Yes.
	And that's official claims, DHS, involved in Sandy Hook, right?
	Yes.
	Do you know what official it's talking about?
	I don't remember.
	Recall right now.
	Wolfgang, though, right?
	Wolfgang Halbig?
	That's who this video is talking about?
	Does that refresh you remember?
	I'll see people.
	Okay.
	And on June 4th, 2015, Mr. Some Newtown City officials in Newtown.
	You're aware of that, right?
	I'm not sure what date it was, but yes, I've seen the competition.
	Okay, let's take a look at that now.
	Can we play a He's
	covering up You're going to jail, criminal!
	How come it's your requirement?
	And you, sir, are defending criminals.
	How do you feel about that?
	You know, this guy here is somebody out of Central Calf in the Plania.
	This is the exact person that they would hire to represent criminals, folks.
	The Sandy Hook truth is coming out, you people going to jail.
	You can smile all you want, you're going to jail for fraud.
	Play in the center.
	All right, we're going to have credentials.
	Dan Bidani, info.com, the number one alternative news source.
	You know, live right on the air.
	What do you have to say about defending criminals?
	You're a bunch of fraud, a bunch of criminals!
	Enjoy your fair reserve notes now, scumbags!
	Now, Mr. Karpova, as we've discussed, you've seen those confrontations before.
	Yes.
	Okay, and we've talked about them, you and I, before, right?
	Yes.
	And I am correct that after seeing this video and understanding about Dan Badondi, I wouldn't completely agree with that statement.
	I think he was doing...
	Is he a little rough around the edges and gets in people's faces?
	Yes.
	It's not exactly my style, but I think that he did what he believed was the right thing to do at that time.
	Correct.
	So by that definition of him trying to pursue the truth in his mind, I think that means it will be reported that way.
	Okay.
	Do you remember giving your deposition in December 2021?
	Right?
	Yes.
	Okay, and you were under oath for that deposition?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I'm going to show you from your deposition, since you told me that you disagreed, I'm going to show you lines 173, I mean, excuse me, page 173, 14. Okay.
	Let's see if we can get this in front of you.
	We see these questions, right?
	Is this question answered?
	And it says, you, you are testifying here, right now, Dan Badandi is a good reporter.
	Is that what you're testifying to?
	Can you tell us your answer?
	Insofar as him trying to investigate what happened to find the truth, that's what a good reporter is supposed to do.
	What we just saw on that video The things Mr. Badani said, that's what a good reporter is supposed to do.
	That's why I just answered what he was doing and he was trying to find the truth.
	And my answer is pretty much exactly the same as my previous testimony.
	So today, you stand by your answer in deposition.
	Mr. Badani is a good reporter.
	That's what good reporters do.
	I just qualified it.
	A good reporter is supposed to get out there and find the truth the matter what.
	Okay.
	No matter what.
	It's not my style the way he did it.
	I would advise him to do so, but he's his own person.
	Well, it's InfoWars style, isn't it?
	They love this, right?
	I don't know that.
	In fact, they knew, InfoWars knew, your colleagues fully knew, that InfoWars, that Dan Badani was down there in Newtown and he might be frightening people.
	They knew that.
	And liked it, right?
	I don't agree with that.
	Okay.
	Well, let's see.
	I would like to look on your list there.
	Do you see a video from July 8, 2015?
	Yes.
	And that video is entitled, The Fight for Freedom of Information in Sandy Hook.
	Right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Let's play clip 31c.
	At the second hearing, you actually tried to question Chief Kehoe.
	He, I guess, recently resigned, like maybe announced it the day before.
	What was your impression of his body language and how he wanted really nothing to do with you?
	He seemed to be afraid of you at that point.
	Yeah, I mean, from the first hearing to the second hearing, I mean, he was just quick answers.
	He looked like he didn't want to be there, wanted to get the hell out of there.
	And, of course, a resignation comes in the night before the hearing.
	And that's the first question I hit him with, is, have Bob been resolved?
	Why are you resigning?
	Then, of course, I followed him all the way out and I tried to get answers on him.
	Of course, no doubt he says that the state police actually grabbed him to put him in a state police car to escort him to his car.
	And then we went after Marty Frank after that.
	Yeah, the lawyer seems to have a vested interest in keeping whatever the narrative they want to push going.
	He's now running with charities.
	He rides his bike for these charities.
	He founded one of them, Team 26 for Newtown.
	How has he been?
	Did you try to interact with him at all during these hearings?
	Yeah, so when I went after Marty Frank, I mean, I was just asking him the questions, just regular questions.
	He did not want to answer, so he's looking at my press credentials, trying to figure out who I am.
	And I told him, say, hey, we're here to expose corruption.
	And this guy fits the bill of somebody out of Central Casting.
	And he's a perfect person.
	He looks like Mr. Burns or somebody from The Simpsons or whatever, running a nuclear power plant.
	But I mean, this guy is somebody out of Central Casting.
	I mean, this guy is a joke.
	Representing corruption.
	Did you hear Mr. Dew say about Mr. Badani confronting that official?
	He seemed to be afraid of him.
	I think I recall that.
	Okay.
	So Mr. Dew knew that Mr. Badani was in Newtown and might be frightening people.
	He knew that.
	Object to the speculation, Your Honor, as to what Rob Dew knew, Sure.
	This video shows, in a production video of the company, that at that time, the company was airing information showing that the company knew that Dan Badani might be scaring people.
	This seems to be like it's an opinion of Rob Du just watching the clip from David Dandy.
	Sure, so the nightly news director seemed to have acquired the opinion from this video as you just testified that Mr. Badandi might be scaring people, right?
	Or whatever that meant to him.
	Sure.
	Do you know if after these confrontations, do you know if Inforwards asked him to go back to San Diego?
	I don't know.
	This is a 7.
	Subject to my running objection, nothing further.
	67 is admitted.
	Thank you.
	Melissa, can we put up 67 on the screen?
	And we'll start with the bottom of the note.
	Let's copy your copy.
	So what we got here is a message from Dan McDundie to Rob Duke.
	Right?
	It appears so.
	And it says, hey Rob, can I do an MOS tomorrow?
	MOS is man on the street.
	Yes.
	And he says, I wanted to hit up the Bristol 4th of July parade.
	It's the country's oldest and long and running 4th of July parade celebration.
	And so then he starts talking about the questions he wants to ask.
	And he says questions.
	Any you want to add or take out, let me know.
	What holiday are we celebrating today?
	What country did we defeat to What is the name of the document that was signed on this name?
	Can you name any of the founding founders that signed the Declaration of Independence?
	And then according to our Constitution, who gives us our rights?
	The government?
	The military?
	We the people?
	Or Obama?
	How many stars are on the flag?
	How many strips?
	Which I believe means stripes.
	Islamic leader Louis Farrakhan recently stated that the American flag needs to be put down.
	Do you agree or not?
	What is your thought?
	Your thoughts.
	What is your thought about people burning and stomping on the American flag?
	And do you think the Confederate flag should be banned?
	And do you think banning this flag is an attack on the First Amendment?
	Those are what Mr. Dandy wanted to go out and ask people, right?
	Suggestions, yes.
	Sure.
	Now let's go up and look at what Mr. Duke said.
	He said, The MLS will be old by the time we can air it.
	Go to Sandy Hook.
	We will cover that.
	Right.
	That's what he wrote.
	Correct.
	Okay.
	So if anyone was to say that Mr. Badani stopped working for InfoWars and they stopped asking him to do stuff because of what he did in Newtown, that's not true, is it?
	If that were said.
	I'm not sure what capacity he'd be doing this particular assignment.
	What do you mean by that, you don't know what capacity he'd be doing?
	Rob Dew is asking an employee of the company who's working for Infowars as its reporter to go and cover Sandy Hook, and he's referencing a report that happened days ago.
	He knows that he did what he did days ago.
	So when he's asking him to do this, he's asking him to go do the same thing.
	Uh, it was a little bit complicated.
	It was a little funky.
	Let me try it again.
	Because InfoWars knew about what Adandi had done days before, it's a reasonable inference that when Ra was asking him to go to Sandy Hope again, he was wanting him to do basically the same thing.
	Isn't that fair?
	It's objection to relevance, false perspective action.
	Overruled.
	I wouldn't completely agree with that.
	You don't completely agree with that?
	With your statement.
	Right.
	Because what you then, I guess, think is that Mr. Badandi was going to go to Sandy Hook and do something totally different than what he had done before?
	Is that what you're saying?
	I don't know what he would have done.
	Rob, do you have a better idea in his email what he could have done?
	Okay.
	Dan Badandi's nickname inside of InfoWars is the Kraken, correct?
	I don't think I've heard that before.
	You've never heard them say, release the Kraken, about Daniel Madani?
	No, I know that's a general expression on the internet about a lot of things.
	What does that mean to you?
	I'm not even sure, to be honest with you.
	Okay.
	Dan Badani is a former professional wrestler.
	I'm sorry?
	Dan Badani is a former professional wrestler.
	I don't know his background.
	I've never seen him talk to the guy about him, but I believe that's correct.
	Let's play from that same video.
	this is again July 8 2015 the fight for freedom of information at Sandy Hook let's take a look at 31a they talk about how the school board has every record back for decades decades Decades!
	Yet they don't have permission slips or anything having to do with this trip that they're taking the San Diego Choir to the Super Bowl.
	No mention of it anywhere.
	Oh, we're just going to send the kids to the Super Bowl.
	No big deal.
	You know, crazy.
	Alright, on the right there, that's Leah McAdoo, right?
	Yes.
	At that time.
	Yes.
	And on the left there, that's Robert Dew.
	Right?
	Yes.
	Again, one of the people we were talking about is a high production employee during his course of his career in the awards.
	Right?
	At some point, I believe he was.
	I mean, look, Mr. Rapova, I think you can agree with me.
	This one's right hand man when he came to production.
	Do you agree with that?
	He does a lot of things.
	Okay.
	And in that clip, Mr. Du is again talking about this idea of the Super Bowl choir.
	Some fishy going on with the Super Bowl choir.
	That's what he's talking about?
	That's what he's talking about.
	Yeah.
	So even after Wolfgang Halbert had sent plaintiff's exhibit 43, And they had seen this picture.
	Rob Dew, still on InfoWars later, talking about this Super Bowl choir, isn't he?
	He must have had questions about this picture.
	Alright.
	At this time, you're aware, aren't you, that the company knew that Mr. Halbig had been warned about trespassing on the Catholic private school at Sandy Hook.
	You knew that?
	Would you remind me what you're exactly referring to?
	I would love to.
	66. I'd
	like to see some, but I can't agree to it at this point.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	I'll show you who's talking.
	It's got one of those labels at the bottom again?
	Yes.
	You want to read it for me?
	FSSTX-042477.
	This was in the company's possession that they gave to me.
	It appears so.
	You know that's what that label means, Ms. Carpelle.
	We testified about that before, right?
	The company gave this document to me.
	It appears so.
	This document was in the company's possession.
	The information in this document was in the company's possession.
	It appears so.
	If anyone in the company actually cared to look, they could learn every piece of information in this document.
	It was in their possession, right?
	I don't know whose possession was in it.
	Yes, you do, Ms. Karpova.
	You've just testified that that label means it was in InfoWars possession and they gave it to me, right?
	Correct, but the company comprises of people and I don't know who the people would be.
	You understand that Free Speech Systems LLC is a defendant in this case?
	Yes.
	Isn't a person like we know a person, right?
	It's a thing.
	Do you understand what I mean?
	Yes.
	And it's a thing, right?
	Yes, but inanimate object cannot lead and lead possession.
	That's absolutely true, isn't it?
	A corporation can only act with the people who are inside them.
	And so if a corporation has a piece of information in its possession, the only way that they can act on it is if somebody actually reads it, right?
	And this piece of information is in the possession of Free Speech Systems LLC. Do you agree with that?
	According to the standard.
	66 in Newton Evans?
	Any objections?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	I mean, the fact that this was in the possession of the company...
	What is the legal objection?
	They haven't established any predicate other than that we produced it in discovery.
	And it's not our document?
	Your Honor, I don't know what that legal objection was.
	I don't either.
	It's not a...
	What's the exception to the hearsay?
	It's not offered for the truth of the matter.
	It's offered that they had knowledge that these events happened or that Mr. Halbig was informed of these events.
	Overruled.
	Petitioner 66 is admitted.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Can we put 66 up on the screen?
	We see up at the top of here, Melissa, can you highlight the letterhead at the very top that says Diocese?
	See, it says Diocese of Bridgeport.
	Do you know what a diocese is?
	Vaguely.
	Like a division of the Catholic Church?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Let's go down now to who it's addressed to.
	We'll go down to the email and the date and address.
	June 25th, 2015, Wolfgang Halbig down at Sorrento, Florida.
	Correct?
	That's what it says.
	And that's June 25th.
	That is now, I believe, 21 days After the videos that we just saw with Dan Badandi and Wolfgang Halbig in Newtown together, right?
	We are so.
	Okay.
	Can we go down to the text of this letter?
	Dear Mr. Halbig, as the Chief Legal Officer of the Diocese of Bridgeport, I write to serve you notice that you are to cease and desist any activity on or in the vicinity of St. Rose of Lima Parish.
	Including the church, rectory, school, and any other ancillary buildings on or near the parish grounds.
	Your presence will be considered a trespass and a nuisance.
	Should there be any violation of this order, the parish reserves the right to see any and all remedies available to it under the law and will immediately contact law enforcement to remove you and any individuals in your company from the property.
	Forcibly, if necessary, this order shall remain in effect from the date of this letter forward, very truly yours, Anne O. McCrory, Chief Legal and Real Estate Officer.
	I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So, in the possession of Free Speech Systems, LLC, was a document which establishes that Wolfgang Howell had been warned about a trespass on this church's property.
	I don't know what this document is.
	I think you do know where it came from because we saw at the top it came from the Diocese of Bridgeport, right?
	That's where it came from.
	Right?
	That's what it says.
	And we know from your testimony this was in the possession of Free Speech Systems, LLC. Correct?
	According to the standard.
	Sure.
	Did you know that Mr. Halbig was alleging that children at that private school were actually the crisis actor children of Sandy Hotel?
	Did you know that?
	I don't recall that.
	You don't recall Mr. Du talking about that?
	About what?
	About the fact that Wolfgang Halbig believed Let's go forward just a little bit.
	Just another week or so.
	Let's go to July 7, 2015. Do you have your list in front of you?
	And Free Speech Systems made a video on that day relating to Sandy Hook, correct?
	Yes.
	And that video was called, Government is Manufacturing Crises, right?
	Yes.
	Now, Rob Dew has an uncle that you know about, right?
	You know who I'm talking about when I say Rob Dew's uncle?
	I've heard him talking about his uncle in the videos.
	I don't know his uncle.
	Personally, I understand.
	Sure.
	But you know, for instance, that Rob Dew's uncle, who it's claimed was in the FBI at some point, that he went to go watch the hearing with Wolfgang Halbert.
	You know that?
	I don't know if he did that.
	I don't know.
	I can't remember if Rob Dew claimed that.
	Oh, okay.
	He did.
	Probably, let me go ahead and show you a clip.
	It may make it easier to talk about.
	Let's take a look at that video on July 7, 2015, government is manufacturing crises And this is PBX16C. Can you play that really soon?
	Will you please call your uncle before they try to get to him?
	Yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	I actually texted him and told him about the third hearing that's going to go on.
	I said, hey, you need to check this out.
	He hasn't gotten back with me on that.
	Where does he live?
	Up there?
	Yeah.
	He lives up, but he doesn't live in Connecticut.
	He lives south of New York City.
	Oh, so New Jersey.
	Yeah.
	Anyways, come on.
	It's not a secret agent thing.
	The people that did Sandy Hook knows where your uncle lives.
	I'm sure they do.
	Yeah, it's like Larry Nichols gives his home address.
	By the way, Larry Nichols is on Thursday.
	Alright, dude, good job covering all this.
	We only skim the surface.
	I mean, I don't want to be the one reporting all this.
	It's super dangerous, but it's just the truth.
	Mr. Jones said, the people who did Sandy Hook know where your uncle lives.
	You heard that?
	Who did Sandy Hook?
	I have no idea who he's referring to.
	Okay, so you have no idea what Mr. Jones is talking about in terms of who he is claiming was responsible for Sandy Hook.
	I don't know what people he's referring to.
	Don't you think about all of the videos we watched today that talk about government cover-up, false flag, Obama's PSYOP, Don't you think we risk our reputation for it?
	That's what Mr. Watson wrote?
	Yes.
	At the time of this email, the company knew that both Fetzer and Rintz would be very questionable sources of information.
	Do you agree with that?
	I think Paul Watson was calling, was having access to all those people.
	Let me ask you as you, as the company.
	I'm going to make this really clear.
	I'm asking you as the company to speak as the company.
	Because you were asked to prepare on the editorial discussions of Sandra.
	It is the company's position that at the time of this email, the company knew that Fetzer and Rintz would be very questionable sources of information.
	Do you agree with that?
	Yes, based on Paul Watson's email here.
	Right.
	So, in other words, from this point forward, if anybody relies on Jeff Rintz or Jim Fetzer, they know In the company, they were relying on an unreliable, questionable piece of information.
	Do you agree with that?
	I wouldn't say that that person would know, because it would have to be that individual person who would even talk to Paul.
	Well, I want to make clear, because you said the company knew.
	The company knew.
	So free speech systems published things after this date.
	Relying on Jefferyntz and Jim Fetzer, then Free Speech Systems knew when it published those things that Fetzer and Rintz were very questionable sources of information.
	The company knew that.
	Paul Watson is an individual.
	This is his opinion.
	His opinion is not getting distributed to everybody in the company.
	I don't want to know about Paul's.
	What I'm getting from you is you disagree with me.
	That was not the company's question.
	I would have to make my answer.
	Alright, well let's check that out, actually.
	Do you remember giving your deposition in 2021?
	Yes.
	You were under oath at the time.
	yes 258 24 259 skarpova I'm going to show you now where does 258 258 of your deposition when you were on your own I'm going to read these questions and answers we're We're going to read this part, okay?
	I'm going to say, question.
	This email where Paul Watson says, it's promoted by the most batshit crazy people like Linson Fetzer.
	Does the company agree with Mr. Watson's position, or does it disagree with Mr. Watson's position?
	What was your first answer?
	That's Paul's opinion.
	And then my next question was, that's not...
	I know that.
	I know that.
	Does the company agree with it or not?
	What is the answer?
	At the time it appears that Fetzer and Renz would be a very questionable source of information.
	Fetzer and Renz would be a very questionable source of information.
	That's what you said in your deposition.
	I stand by the answer.
	Okay.
	So from this point forward...
	If the company is relying on Rens or Fetzer, they are relying on a very questionable source of information.
	Do you agree with that?
	No, because you were referring to, you were asking me as a company representative at the time of deposition that when I was referring to, the time of deposition to those people are considered by the company as questionable sources.
	I thought your testimony to me now was that once the company got this email, Once this email was sent around, now it was in the company's knowledge.
	But that's not what you're saying?
	I already told you that this came from Paul Watson, and in order for the company to comprise other people, this email would have to be distributed to everybody who has...
	That's not the law.
	The company does not need to notify every single employee For the company to have the knowledge.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	This is how our company works.
	This email was not distributed to every single person in the company.
	It sure wasn't.
	But it was distributed to one person, wasn't it?
	Who's that?
	Who's Alex in that?
	According to Paul, that's what he did.
	Send it to Alex Jones.
	That's what he says he did.
	And Alex Jones was on notice after this day of what Mr. Watson was Finally,
	we're up to 2016. And I'll have too much farther to go.
	2016, do you remember the U.S. presidential campaign?
	Yes.
	And you will agree with me that Mr. Jones became a major issue in that campaign?
	Yes.
	And in fact, President and Secretary Clinton discussed him in campaign speeches.
	She did.
	And Mr. Jones didn't like that.
	He made a response video about this controversy in the campaign that he called Alex Jones' final statement on Sandy Hook.
	Are you familiar with that video?
	Yes.
	That was published on your list on November 18, 2016?
	Yes.
	I'd like to show you some of that video.
	So the first thing we're going to do is I want to play you PVX18B. Number one, the day before this tragic event happened, an email was sent out by Bloomberg's anti-gun group saying, prepare for a big event.
	But the biggest piece of evidence, the smoking gun, if you would, of a cover-up, of whatever really happened, is the Wayback Machine, the Internet Archive.
	We see Sandy Hook's Newtown website, K-12, having zero traffic, 2008, 9, 10, 11, 12, and then all of a sudden, It's impossible to have zero traffic to a K-12 entire school system.
	And the word is that school system was shut down for those years.
	That's what the records show.
	But they tell us it was open.
	I don't know if the moon landings were faked, but I don't put anything past these anti-guys.
	And early on that day we watched footage of kids going in circles in and out of the building.
	You'd be running them away from the building.
	Emergency helicopters weren't called.
	Instead, porta-potties were prepared for the press within hours of the event.
	I saw the helicopters that did respond, the police helicopters, saying that there were men or a man in the woods.
	In camouflage, the media later said that was a conspiracy theory.
	So early on, I saw local news of the guy in the woods, and they took him in custody.
	Now they're saying it never happened, so that shows there's some kind of a cover-up happening.
	And then I saw Anderson Cooper.
	I've been in TV for 27 years.
	I know a blue screen or a green screen.
	Turn and his nose disappear.
	Then I saw clearly that they were using footage on the green screen looped because it would show flowers and other things during other broadcasts that were moving and then basically cutting to the same piece of footage.
	Then I saw CNN Do faked satellite interviews with reporters clearly with the same traffic and the same cars right behind them, conducting the interview face-to-face.
	Then we see footage of one of the reported fathers of the victims, Robbie Parker, doing classic acting training where he's laughing and joking and they say, hey, we're live, and he goes, oh.
	Maybe that's real.
	I'm sure it is.
	Melissa, can you bring up 35 seconds for me?
	This, I think you recall hearing Mr. Jones call it the smoking gun of a Sandy Hook cover-up.
	You remember him saying that?
	Yes.
	This is the Internet Wayback Machine, a screenshot from it?
	Yes.
	And according to Mr. Jones, he says that this shows that the Newtown School District had no traffic to it, right?
	That's what you thought at the time that meant, yes.
	Right, but he's wrong.
	It appears he's wrong, yes.
	Yeah, in fact, I mean, you testified he's wrong.
	Yes.
	Do you even know if that's the right website?
	Are you afraid to the...
	Newtown.k12.cs.us slash tilde Sandy Hook.
	Do you know if that website was in operation after 2008 or if the school district moved to a new website?
	Do you know?
	No, I don't know.
	Show me 105. That's not Sandy Hook, is it?
	The school?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	So when Mr. Jones said there were kids going in and out of the building at Sandy Hook and that that doesn't make any sense because you'd be getting them away from the building, that's not even the school.
	Right.
	There was a lot of confusing reports at that time that reported that to be a school.
	Nobody verified it, did they?
	Who reported that was the school?
	A lot of people.
	You said a lot.
	Name one.
	I don't...
	It would be impossible to go back and figure out who that person was.
	You didn't try, did you?
	You were asked to.
	I tried.
	You tried.
	What did you do?
	Just look at...
	Look at a bunch of...
	It's hard to find any videos about Sandy Hook in the first place now.
	Because they were either deleted or banned or what.
	But one thing we can say is that Mr. Jones falsely told his audience that that was a school.
	He believed that it was a school.
	He didn't know he lied to the public.
	I didn't ask you that.
	In fact, objection, I'm responsible.
	Sustained.
	I asked you if Mr. Jones, the statements he made about that building being Sandy Hook, were false.
	Right?
	Yes, we were.
	Okay.
	Do you remember when he said that there were quarter potties set up for the press?
	Yes.
	Do you know when porta-potties arrived?
	I don't.
	And you know some press people came to the town once the story got up that there was a mass shooting, right?
	Do you understand that?
	Yes, there was just a lot of confusion about times and events.
	A lot of confusion, but times and events.
	But if you wanted to know, If you wanted to know when something showed up at Sandy Hook School that day, one thing you could do was look at the dashcams of the police officers' cars parked in the parking lot entrance, and you would see anything that went in to the school, right?
	I don't know who would have thought to check that or how...
	We would have come across that information.
	Haven't multiple people on InfoWars discussed the dashcam and how it shows things coming in and out of San Diego?
	I don't remember specifically the videos in 2013. And do you understand that those dashcam videos are in the report that InfoWars had possession of since 2013?
	Do you understand that?
	I'll take the word for it.
	I don't want you to do that.
	Let's show you.
	This is Planes Exhibit 27. And you see here, we've got a lot of media attachments.
	Do you see that?
	So it says media and attachments?
	We have outdoor scene processing videos, don't we?
	Yes.
	We even have indoor scene processing videos, right?
	Yes.
	And then we have primary scene videos, don't we?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And this website was known to the company as we established earlier, correct?
	This website?
	The website that contains the official report of the Sandy Hook Crisis released by the State's Attorney's Office.
	We confirmed that informers knew about this website and those requests for admissions.
	Do you remember that?
	Actually, I don't remember that.
	Can you remember that?
	Sure, I'll come over and point it out again.
	let's go through stock here and I'm gonna kind of help you with your papers we move some of these exhibits out of the way it looks like the request for admissions have a wonderful assistant to get those free ones pull it on exhibit so you probably wouldn't have left them there that's what I figured exactly yes when I say they walked off
	I mean I walked off mindly Here we go.
	Do you remember this question?
	The report in appendix to the report can be accessed and downloaded from the following website.
	The company said?
	That yes.
	And you were aware that this report was publicly available on that date.
	- The witch. - Okay, thank you.
	He talked again about the men in the woods in camouflage.
	You remember that?
	Yes.
	We established it in an earlier video, though, that they knew that that was hours after the shooting, right?
	Who knew?
	Mr. Jones and Mr. Halbig.
	Remember they were talking about the men in the woods on the helicopter and it was at 1224 p.m., hours after the shooting.
	Mr. Halbig said the school was already safe and secure by 1023. Do you remember any of this?
	I think there's just a lot of confusion in the time didn't get cleared up for this video did it yeah Jones talks about two reporters talking to each other from the same parking lot.
	Did you see that part?
	Let's pull it up for you.
	Can you bring up two minutes?
	Remember this?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Do you see the date here?
	Yes.
	All right.
	Melissa, is there any way you can bring up this box?
	I can, but it won't be very clear.
	It won't be very clear, but we're going to give it a try.
	And I'm hoping we're going to be able to see it.
	That does not look good at all.
	But what I think you can see is P, an H, an O, an E, an N, an I, and an X. Phoenix.
	Zoom it out again.
	Both of these say Phoenix, don't they?
	Right?
	It appears so.
	Okay, and let's go back down again to the date.
	May 9th, 2013. That is way after Sandy Hook, right?
	Sometime after Sandy Hook.
	Do you know what these women are covering?
	Do you know?
	It's not Sandy Hook, is it?
	I'm asking, do you know?
	I'm not sure.
	okay so this hasn't as far as we know this has nothing to do with same right I'm sorry.
	These women are in a parking lot covering some event.
	But it's not Sandy Hook if it's in Phoenix, is it?
	I don't know.
	And they don't say they're in different places, do they?
	It says they're both in Phoenix, right?
	Yes.
	I don't know if Alex saw the video or is talking about this video.
	I'm not sure.
	The article is not a repost from Happy Place.
	Ms. Karpova plays objection on response.
	It's saying Ms. Karpova Sorry.
	So, I sustained your objection to her answer being non-responsive.
	That means you didn't answer the question he asked you.
	He's going to ask another question.
	You're going to listen to the question he asks you and answer that question, not whatever you feel like saying.
	Answer the question he asks you.
	Go ahead.
	This shows these women are both in Phoenix, right?
	Yes.
	Nobody said they were in different places.
	Right?
	I don't know who said they were in different places, if anybody did say or not.
	Okay.
	And now, well, Mr. Jones did.
	Yes.
	Alright.
	And you say now that it might be a different video.
	This might be the wrong video.
	Is that what you're saying?
	I don't want to speculate.
	Right.
	And because you were ordered to prepare on the sourcing and research for the claims like this, influence petition, That was something you should have at some point reviewed, right?
	Well, again, this was taken down, so it's impossible to go back to this particular article and see what was in it.
	This article isn't on the InfoWars website right now?
	I don't believe so.
	And then this video is certainly in your possession, isn't it?
	I don't believe so.
	Ms. Karpova, your company gave this video to me.
	You understand?
	Okay.
	Right, so the video is in your possession.
	Did you even look at it?
	I looked at a lot of videos and don't remember.
	Okay.
	Sometimes you've seen out in front of like parking lots, a courthouse, trailers of CNN anchors and they're sitting in their little chairs in their setups and they're being filmed in a parking lot.
	You've seen that before?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And these two in here are both CNN anchors.
	Do you see that down on the bottom?
	Yes.
	Right, so I'm just trying to get...
	What in the heck is suspicious about this?
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	Let's play another clip from this video.
	video let's play 18c this is from the same clip Yes, and I'll make that clear for the record, Your Honor.
	Well, I'm just trying to figure out a break time.
	If this is, I want you to finish your, you know, topic.
	Let's do, this is about two minutes, so let's take a break.
	Oh, you want to take the break?
	Let's take the break now.
	All right.
	It's 2.58.
	The afternoon break is going to be a little bit longer because everyone needs it.
	So, 30 minutes.
	We'll come back a little before 3.30.
	Remember all of my instructions.
	They still apply.
	thank you lawyers
	that's very well I'm I'm maybe see and I'm mr. Pope
	before we broke we were looking at the video that was recorded on November 18 the 16th and why should anybody fear an investigation if they have nothing to hide in In fact, isn't that in Shakespeare's Hamlet?
	Methinks you protest too much.
	So here is my statement for the media when they call up saying, where do you stand on this?
	Where I've always stood.
	When there were other mass shootings, I would simply point out that they're very rare statistically, and why should we all give up our rights?
	Because some other bad person does something.
	A guy with a car runs over 50 people.
	Do we ban driving cars?
	It's the same thing.
	And there have been other instances of shootings that are very suspicious.
	Aurora is one.
	Just look into that.
	But this particular case, they are so scared of an investigation.
	So everything they do basically ends up blowing over their face.
	So you guys are going to get what you want now.
	I'm going to start reinvestigating Sandy Hook and everything else that happened with him.
	I'm also signing off from FullWars.com.
	If you're watching this transmission, think for yourself.
	I know it's a thought crime.
	And then ask yourself, what is it so strange about Sandy Hook?
	And that tragedy.
	But I will say this, finally, my heart does go out to all parents that lose children, whether it's to stabbings, or whether it's to car wrecks, or whether it's to stranglings, or whether it's to blunt force trauma, or murder, firearms, whatever the case is, I'm a parent and my heart goes out to all parents that have lost children in these tragic events.
	And so, if children were lost in Sandy Hook, my heart goes out to each and every one Of those parents and the people that say they're parents that I see on the news.
	The only problem is I've watched a lot of soap operas, and I've seen actors before.
	And I know when I'm watching a movie, I don't know when I'm watching something real.
	Let's look into Sandy Hook.
	When Mr. Jones said there, let's look into Sandy Hook, He means his audience, too.
	They should look into it, too.
	That's what you're saying?
	Yes.
	Ms. Carfoba, I would like to show you an email from that same day.
	Okay?
	We're talking to her about 77, which I assume is a little bit different.
	77 is already admitted.
	Okay, just making sure.
	I wasn't sure if that was just for opening.
	I'm going to show you a copy of the Plaintiff's Exhibit 77. Now, I'd like you for Ms. Karpova to start at the second page, the bottom of this email, okay?
	And can we bring up Plaintiff's Exhibit 77?
	All right, this is the first email on the bottom that InfoWars received.
	And you'll see at the bottom it says, from Laney Mulvey, Senior Communications Manager.
	And I believe if you flip to your front page, you will see that it's addressed to Hello Paul Joseph.
	Do you see that?
	Yes.
	Okay, so let's read this email.
	And this woman here identifies herself with Quantcaps.
	She says, InfoWars experienced a surge in traffic around November 8th.
	Now that's not unusual, right?
	Because November 8th was election day, right?
	Correct.
	There's nothing unusual about InfoWars getting a lot of traffic that day.
	But it says, as a normal measure, all large sites experiencing a traffic surge have a hold automatically placed on rankings for systems review.
	It says, this process typically takes seven to ten business days During this period, the InfoWars profile has remained public at Quantcast.com slash InfoWars.
	We hope this resolves any confusion surrounding the temporary hold on your ranking, which will be restored shortly, hopefully as soon as tomorrow.
	Please know that as a Quantcast customer, InfoWars can contact our support team at any time with questions regarding your measurement information.
	Did I read that right?
	Yes.
	Alright, now podcast is something that InfoWars is a customer of that'll help track rankings of websites and who's getting traffic, right?
	I'm not sure what they do or how InfoWars Something to do with tracking the traffic of the Interwardship website.
	We're not exactly sure.
	Something along those lines, right?
	Or some kind of posting, yeah.
	Okay.
	I want to go up to the next email, which just says, thanks, I'll pass this on.
	Can we go up to that next one?
	And it's Paul, the editor, writing back to the woman at Quantcast saying, thanks, I'll pass this on.
	Right?
	Yes.
	And then I want to go up, because Mr. Watson gets to send an email from the person he passed it on to named Buckley.
	And you'll see that right there it'll say, and in fact, Melissa, do you say it where it says on Friday, 18 November 2016?
	If you can zoom in from there, hopefully it'll be a little bit better.
	Okay, so here's the first part of Buckley's email.
	That was written on November 18, 2016, the same day as the video we were just watching.
	And it says, but no, surely it's a conspiracy theory that they are trying to suppress our popularity so that the lizard people can return to the ascension pad at Sandy Hook and feast on sacrificed crisis actors.
	And if you scroll down, you see that Buckley has included here a caricature.
	Of a man missing his teeth, giving an OK symbol.
	Do you see that?
	Yes.
	So Buckley is making a joke here, right?
	That's what he's doing.
	It's some kind of meme, and he's saying LOL at the end.
	Yes, it's kind of an inside joke he's making.
	An inside joke, exactly.
	Because outside, outside InfoWars, on this very day, Mr. Jones is talking about the parents being actors.
	And at the same time that's happening, we can tell from this email that his cousin, a managerial employee, is cracking jokes about the sacrifice of crisis actors at San Diego.
	Do you agree with that?
	That's what's happening.
	I don't see how that's related.
	I don't know.
	With Buckley's watching the broadcast, I have no idea.
	I don't know either.
	But what we do know is from inside of InfoWars, at the same time these events, or Mr. Jones is going on telling the public, But these folks think it's all a big joke, right?
	I wouldn't say that now.
	I mean, talking about lizard people, returning the ascension pad to feast and sacrifice crisis actors.
	Let's sit here.
	It's a bad, bad joke, isn't it?
	It's meant to be some kind of grotesque joke, but it's also, he's attaching a meme to it.
	Are you talking about that picture of the man?
	Is that what you're saying?
	A meme?
	Yeah, M-E-M-E? M-E-M-E. Right.
	And, yeah, repeated a couple of M-E's there.
	But what a meme is, maybe from, you know, I had actually, you know, I've grown up on the internet, that we have images that we use as jokes on the internet.
	Right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And that's what's happening here, right?
	Right?
	That's what's happening here.
	What's happening here is he's making a joke.
	I'd like to move forward just a little bit.
	81.
	81.
	And forward, you want me to help you find it?
	Yeah.
	And we'll update.
	Subject to my continuing objection.
	The priming objection, the one.
	Partitioners 81 is admitted.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	I'm going to provide you with 81. Up at the top is a big line of email addresses, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Zoom in on that box of email addresses.
	Now, it's all from Wolfgang Halberg, right?
	Yes.
	I'm going to walk over to the screen so I can point some stuff out.
	Newtownct.gov, that's certainly somebody who works in the Newtown government, right?
	It appears so.
	You know what the AP is, the Associated Press, AP.org?
	It appears so.
	FBI.gov?
	Yes.
	You've got stuff like Attorneys, I believe there's Wicker Smith.
	You've got Newtown Government, you see those?
	Yes.
	Washington Post?
	Right?
	Washington Post?
	Washington Post?
	Right?
	You've got Brian Ross at ABC? Yes.
	You've got the Governor of Connecticut?
	Criminal Division of the U.S. DOJ? Yes.
	Rob Dew at InfoWars?
	Yes.
	Nico at InfoWars?
	Yes.
	Some more Orlando Sentinel.
	Is this a Florida newspaper?
	It appears so.
	Okay.
	New York Times?
	Yes.
	More FBI? Yes.
	Stratford K. That's some sort of school?
	Something like that.
	A lot of people copied on this email, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Let's go down to Nima.
	Let's start with the first few lines and start reading it down.
	Now this was sent, as you see on the document before you, on March 21, 2017. Is that right?
	It is.
	Okay.
	And it says, Nick and Laura Phelps did a great job of acting in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012. I visited their home today, and I'm not going to read their address for the slides, but you visited it when you were floored.
	Thanks to Lieutenant Van Gailey telling me during my wellness check of Nick and Laura Phelps that they no longer live in Newtown, Connecticut, and they are now Richard and Jennifer Sexton.
	Guess what?
	He is totally right.
	And can you believe it?
	That my Newtown Police Department guided me in the right direction.
	They have a beautiful home with a three-car garage.
	They were not home today.
	But the good news is that the three adult female moms with their children standing outside their homes observed me and wanted to know what I was doing.
	In a spring break for Orange County, Florida school children, I showed them this picture and told them that I did not want to go to the wrong house to surprise Nick and Laura from Newtown, Connecticut, a.k.a.
	Richard and Jennifer Sexton today.
	It took a few minutes for them to look at the pictures, and then they asked why I wanted to speak to them.
	They asked for my name, which I gave them as Wolfgang W. Helper.
	They told me how I knew them, and I told them, That they have been on the national news, and so I wanted to meet them again.
	Our conversation was all about Newtown, Connecticut, so she said, do you mind if I text her?
	I said, absolutely not.
	Waited about 10 minutes only to learn that they did not know me, which surprised me.
	They verified the pictures, and why would she text them about Newtown, Connecticut, and that someone from there wanted to visit if they were not naked Laura Phelps, now Richard and Jennifer Sexton.
	Then he says, at first I did not want to enter since it is a gated commuting.
	Several people told me to just go on in.
	There is no security guard at the gates.
	If there is a CCTV, they will see me being told to go in and that is the only reason or I would not have entered.
	Now who says that law enforcement does not know what they are doing?
	Thank you, Newtown, Connecticut Police Department.
	Read that, right?
	Yes.
	Let's flip the page here and look at that picture he's talking about.
	And it says, Sandy Hook hoax actors.
	And there you see a YouTube clip of Nick Phelps and his wife, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And it says, playing the part of grief-stricken parents.
	And then you see there's another picture down there that seems to say that the two people in the photo below are actually them, and that they're from Florida.
	You see that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	This is the kind of thing that Mr. Halbert was sending infowards, that infowards have in its possession, correct?
	It's the kind of thing that he was sending and most of them were not even read.
	If nobody responded to this email, I don't think it was read.
	And even if it was read, I mean, if I had read it, I would ignore it because I would consider it somebody who just ran away.
	I'm a crazy person.
	But I don't think this email was even seen by anybody.
	First objection on response.
	I asked you, is that email in the company's position?
	Can you please answer that first?
	According to the staff, yes.
	Which you think shows a crazy person?
	Is that what you said?
	If I had read this email, if I had gotten it at that time and read it, it would appear to me like that, yes.
	Yeah, it does, doesn't it?
	Because that's Wolfgang Howe showing up at people's houses, right?
	I don't know if he's telling the truth here or what, but it does appear like an unstable person talking here.
	Do you remember earlier today, I asked you, Do you understand how wrong it was to encourage this man's delusions like that?
	Do you still stand by your answer, or after this, do you understand how wrong it was?
	I want to say again, as my previous answer...
	At that time, we...
	We did not believe that Halvik was this unstable, crazy person.
	And had we believed it, we would have not put him on the air.
	I hear you saying today that when you read this email, it strikes me as crazy.
	But isn't it true, Ms. Karkova?
	The truth is that when you were first shown this email, it didn't bother you at all.
	And in fact, it struck you as an impassioned man who believes in his heart what he believes and wants to get to the truth.
	Isn't that how that email strikes you?
	It can be read many ways.
	That's one of them.
	No, no, hold on.
	How did you read it the first time you saw it?
	You believed.
	It struck you as an impassioned man who believed this with all his heart and wanted to get to the bottom of it.
	That's the truth.
	I, you telling me that I read this email before, how I don't remember reading it.
	Okay, let's refresh your memory on that, okay?
	You remember giving your deposition in 2021?
	Yes.
	And you were under oath.
	Let me ask you this, Mr. Povo.
	Before you came into this courtroom, did you read your deposition?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	When did you do that?
	Last night?
	I mean, not before the first day of the deposition.
	Page 214, line 23. 214-12.
	Alright, I'm going to read something from your deposition.
	This is on page 214 of your deposition.
	Now, do you see my question?
	I said, it doesn't creep you out to have Wolfgang Halbin showing up at these people's houses and describing their three-car garage and all that stuff, accusing them of being people they're not, actually are?
	That doesn't, that doesn't have any, you don't have any strong feelings on that one way or another?
	Your answer?
	No response?
	It says no response.
	And then so I said, correct?
	What did you say?
	Are you asking my personal opinion?
	And I said, yeah, your personal opinion.
	What did you say, Ms. Capullo?
	It strikes me as an impassioned man who is doing an investigation of some people he's in, his own card, and he wants to get to the bottom of.
	I stand by that.
	He was an unstable man who, that still stands.
	He was impassioned to what he was doing.
	You know about a month after that, April 22nd, 2017, did the Forrest publish a video?
	Which video do you have?
	Let me get your list in front of you, okay?
	I have it.
	You just put it on.
	April 22nd, 2017.
	Yes.
	Why don't you tell the jury what the title of that video was?
	Sandy Hook, Vampires Exposed.
	Okay, so one month after Wolfgang Alvig has said that he has visited the Phelps in Florida, we have this Infowars episode entitled Sandy Hook, Vampires Exposed.
	I'd like to show you a clip that we can talk about from that video, okay?
	Yes.
	Okay, let's play clip 20B. Yeah, hey Alex.
	The whole Sandy Hook thing is a quagmire because of the way the media and the officials up there were so secret about everything.
	And that's where people started questioning.
	That's the big thing.
	They were saying, anybody who says anything on the internet and he gets caught with it, we're going to go after him.
	They come out the first day, they have the wrong name of the supposed shooter.
	They have his older brother.
	And they have guns that they're calling out.
	Then they're pulling guns out of cars.
	They're finding people in the backwoods that are dressed up in SWAT gear.
	And that's on helicopter footage.
	And they say it never existed.
	And they later admit it does.
	And then the school was closed until that year.
	And the videos, it's all rotting and falling apart.
	And nobody's even in it.
	And the kids are going in circles in and out of the village with their hands up.
	And then they never called rescue choppers.
	I mean, exactly.
	Yeah, there's a lot of weirdness.
	There's some supposed dash camera footage where the people are smiling and getting their lunches ready, the police officers.
	You think you're going to have smiling police officers at a time when, you know, they're supposedly bringing out 20 dead kids, and they're smiling and getting their lunches ready on top of a police car.
	And they had porta-potties being delivered an hour after it happened for the big media event.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's...
	I'm amazed.
	And then, you know, we've never seen, there's never been any even blurred photos of any bodies or anything.
	We've seen every other incident, whether it's dead.
	They sure showed us some nerve gas kids in Syria, didn't they?
	Yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, we didn't even get blurred images with the dead kids in Syria.
	We got crisp photos.
	We got, you know, UN photos being held up.
	All right.
	Let's go over there.
	The vast majority of what we just heard in there was the same stuff we've been hearing Mr. Jones and Mr. Halbig talk about over and over again, right?
	Yes, a lot of that stuff.
	In fact, a lot of that stuff comes from those 16 questions you told me you understood, right?
	I don't have every question memorized.
	I didn't ask you that.
	I asked you if some of that comes from Wolfgang Halbig's questions.
	So in 2017...
	Well, after years of InfoWars receiving emails from Wolfgang Halberg of the type we've seen today, they were still repeating the stuff he said on InfoWars in 2017, correct?
	Could you repeat that again?
	Sure.
	Years after InfoWars had possession of all these emails that we've seen from Wolfgang Halberg and all the things that he was doing, they were still By the way,
	we've talked about most of these false things that are said in there.
	Have you ever seen this supposed dash cam footage of these cops that Mr. Jones was talking about?
	Or Mr. D was talking about?
	I would like to see what you're referring to.
	I've never seen it.
	That's what I'm asking you.
	And I'm asking you because I don't think it exists.
	Right?
	That's made up.
	If they talked about it, they must have seen it.
	Really?
	You think they must have seen it?
	They didn't want to make it up.
	You're just assuming that, right?
	You didn't talk to Rob Du about this, did you?
	Let's just...
	You can ask a question, and you can ask it that way.
	Let's just take a B and then ask the question again.
	Absolutely.
	Okay.
	Will you testify here under oath that Rob Dew has seen this supposed dash cam footage?
	If he had talked about it, then he had seen it, yes.
	You're positive that under oath.
	Yes, I've never seen him lie about, you know, That's true.
	They probably couldn't find it.
	It was on the internet.
	Why didn't they put it on the show?
	I don't know.
	Sounds like Rob Dew said there's this supposed dash cam footage.
	I usually don't say supposed about things I've never seen before.
	Wouldn't you agree with that?
	I'm not sure what he meant by that.
	Well, sort of like when somebody says, the supposed murders of...
	I'm sorry, I got an objection?
	Yeah, this whole thing is speculated.
	That's what what's in the wrong view's mind when he's sexing.
	Well, I think that Ms. Karhova is the one who brought this in by saying he wouldn't say it if he hadn't seen it.
	He wouldn't lie.
	So now we have to explore that.
	He knows that.
	Sort of like if somebody was to say, the supposed victims of Sandy Hook.
	That sort of signals they're not sure, right, doesn't it?
	They're not sure about what?
	Whether there's victims of Sandy Hook.
	Yeah.
	suppose it can be one of those things to me is Rob dudes never seen that I thought it was supposed that right Again, I don't know what you mean by that indicator.
	I'm just assuming based on my experience around you.
	You don't know, though, right?
	I don't know for sure.
	Thank you, Ms. Kelly.
	Around this time in the summer of 2017, you understand that Mr. Jones gave an interview to Megyn Kelly, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And you understand around this time that a controversy had developed that Ms. Kelly was covering about Mr. Jones statements about Stadia, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And Mr. Jones, once he gave that interview, was not happy with Halliburton.
	Do you agree with that?
	Yes, because she lied about why she was invited.
	Yeah, she kind of suckered him into a hippie, huh?
	Pretty much.
	Entrapped him.
	A good reporter might go to a subject and try to soften his defenses and say, oh, Mr. Jones is so important, so powerful.
	In the room, she went a different direction, didn't she?
	I believe she specifically said that it wasn't going to be about Sandy Hook, which is why he accepted the interview.
	He wasn't the one who wanted to keep the conversation about Sandy Hook going.
	It was her and the mainstream media attaching him to Sandy Hook.
	He wanted to stop talking about Sandy Hook because he was potentially facing some legal threat.
	I don't know what.
	Okay.
	Let's take a look at a video.
	Do you remember...
	Let's take a look at that on your list there.
	June 13th, 2017. Do you see that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And do you see there was an episode entitled, Media Refuses to Report Alex Jones' Real Statements on Sandy Hook.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Let's take a look back quick.
	Let's look at PBX 21A.
	Again, I want to encourage people to read the Zero Edge article that breaks it all down because they absolutely are on target with this report.
	Where they ask the questions that the media seems so scared that I might even actually talk about if the Megyn Kelly interview aired.
	Why does the San Diego Elementary School website have zero traffic for four years before the event and show it was closed?
	Why were there several reports of other shooters dressed in camouflage in the woods that fled of whom the police allegedly detained?
	Why were porta potty sandwiches and fruit drinks and chips brought up and set up for the crime scene in just an hour or so?
	Sandy Hook, yeah, it just goes on and on.
	An FBI crime stat which shows no murders occurred in Newtown in 2012. Why didn't they let paramedics and EMTs in the building and 27 children were declared dead in eight minutes?
	Why was Adam Lanz's home burned to the ground by the bank?
	Why have they declared all the records totally secret?
	These are questions the public has.
	They're the ones asking it.
	They're the ones demanding it.
	I've said I believe children did die there, but PR firms were involved, admittedly, hyping it up as much as possible.
	But there's been a cover-up, and Anderson Cooper got caught faking where his location was with Bluestream.
	I mean, it's all there.
	We don't know what happened.
	I believe kids died.
	But the same media that's faking a bunch of other stuff and faking war propaganda is saying that I have said things that I never said that have been taken out of context and now won't report when I'm saying don't air the interview on Father's Day to hurt fathers and demonize men and that you edited me out of context and that I don't want to air it.
	Why won't they actually report on what I'm saying?
	I'm Alex Jones.
	This is the Infowars.
	Coming up, Owen Schroyer in the studio for the next 30 minutes.
	And I'll be back in the studio coming up live.
	Please spread the word because the truth lives at Infowars.com.
	Can you bring up the part of the video with the list of things he was going through and close it?
	I know that might be a little tough.
	We can just start.
	You can't even get it while you're done.
	You want to pick up your stuff, I can pull up the screen.
	Now, do you remember a part of this video where Mr. Jones, and he's going to be advancing it to this part, was reading through this list?
	Right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Not true, right?
	Number one, not true, correct?
	These are, I can't agree, but these are the, he's making a point that Sandy Hook is, sorry, that Zero Hedge is actually reporting on what his questions are.
	I think that's the point that he's making here.
	Right.
	His means Jones.
	Yes.
	Why doesn't Sandy Hook school website traffic have zero traffic for four years?
	That's not true.
	Correct, but that's his question that they won't report on.
	Well, it's not a question, Ms. Karpova, it's a statement, right?
	If I was to say, Ms. Karpova, why do you steal from the school?
	Why do you steal?
	Why do you lie?
	Why do you cheat?
	Those are false statements, right?
	That's false.
	This is false.
	This is a false question, right?
	Right.
	Okay.
	False, right?
	Nobody dressed in camouflage fled into the woods, right?
	The questions Alex Jones has.
	And they're false.
	There were no shooters who dressed in camouflage.
	You can't answer why that happened if there were none, correct?
	You can't answer the question why these people in camouflage fled into the woods That's false, right?
	Well, the answer would have been, you know, false reports that he's seen.
	I mean, you could still answer the question.
	There's no false report.
	Mr. Jones says this.
	Camouflage, flood into the woods.
	He just made it up, right?
	Look, he's making his question off the videos that he had seen.
	What videos?
	Of somebody being in camouflage, fleeing into the woods?
	Something like that, yes.
	Quarter potties.
	Sandwiches, fruits, chips and drinks brought up inside the school.
	That's a lot.
	That's not true.
	Right?
	Again, that's a question that he has in his mind.
	The question is true because that's his question.
	I'm not sure.
	That's his question and they're recording on it.
	I think that's the whole point.
	Did you notice how I started to read this one?
	Right here?
	He started to go, Sandy Hook, fuck!
	And then he stopped, and then he highlighted the next one.
	Did you see that?
	Let's play it again.
	Melissa, can you play this part right now?
	No, I want to sit.
	An hour or so.
	Sandy Hook, yeah, it just goes on and on.
	An FBI crime stat which shows no murders occurred in New County.
	He was about to read it, wasn't he?
	Alex Jones does that a lot.
	I don't think he means anything.
	You don't think so?
	You don't think it was...
	Well, let me ask you this.
	Earlier in this trial, we heard from Detective Jan Jovis, and he was talking about that he at least knew of one other person who was specifically identified by him followers who had brought similar claims, named Lenny Posse.
	You know about him, right?
	Yes.
	Right.
	Robbie Parker's another, isn't he?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	So Mr. Jones didn't want to say his name anymore.
	I don't know what he was...
	Albert Jones is known to skip lines whenever he reads stuff in the articles, just because his line is a reparation, he skips through lines.
	Sure.
	You can see.
	You can take this on also.
	The Megyn Kelly interview aired, and then you understand, we've talked about this in the We're going to talk a little bit about that video of Owen Shroyo.
	I understand you weren't directly involved in that video, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	But I do want to show you one thing we talked about, and can you bring up for me slide 62?
	This is going to be from...
	Is this an exhibit?
	Yes, it's going to be from pvx 23.
	This was a slide from the opening statement All right This is a screenshot from Plaintiff's Video Exhibit 23. The Owen Shroyer broadcast that Mr. Shroyer will be discussing with us later.
	But if you look right here, the article that InfoWars was citing contained information from Jim Fetzer.
	That's right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You would agree with me, Mr. Arpoe.
	At the time of this video, InfoWars knew there were issues regarding Mr. Fetzer's credibility.
	They knew that.
	If you're referring back to the email from Paul Watson, I am an author.
	Can you answer that question?
	I'm not sure.
	Okay.
	You remember giving your deposition in 2021, don't you?
	yes 261 8 to 18.
	now I'm gonna approach you with your deposition.
	We're gonna be reading this excerpt here.
	You see that?
	If Owen, and given your previous answer, given that there was some...
	InfoWars was aware that there were some issues being raised with Mr. Fester's credibility, that happened in the exact same year that Owen published this video in 2017. What was your answer?
	Right.
	My question was, so if Owen relied on, if it did happen that Owen's video contains material from Mr. Fetzer, it was done so at a time where Infowars knew there were issues regarding his credibility.
	Ma'am, what was your answer?
	Yes.
	You can go down to October 26, 2017.
	We're almost done.
	You see a video there?
	Yes.
	And it says JFK assassination documents to drop tonight.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Let's play from there, PBX 24-8.
	Top Trends Forecaster.
	I believe this article was on Infowars.com a few days ago that I read, I meant to cover, and then I heard Leanne McAdoo during the break.
	A lot of our radio ads aren't radio ads.
	They're just one-minute little information news pieces.
	It's something we do, we just change things up.
	And I'd forgotten in the documents, the CIA visited Lanza and reportedly recruited him about a year before the shooting.
	I mean, they bulldoze the house to get rid of it.
	I don't know what really happened with Sandy Hook, folks.
	We looked at all sides.
	We played devil's advocate from both sides.
	But, I mean, it's as phony as a $3 bill with the CNN doing fake newscasts with blue screens.
	I mean, Nancy Grace got caught doing it, Anderson Cooper.
	I mean, that is just crazy.
	That's the type of stuff that I read on Infowars.com that I don't even get to.
	So there we're hearing Mr. Jones say that it's phony as a $3 bill, right?
	That's an expression, yes.
	during his program you mr. Jones would frequently switch gears midstream and start asking his audience to buy his products right are you talking about ads that he does Sure, in the middle of he's giving news and then just suddenly he'll just transition over and start selling products, right?
	That's cool to plug.
	That's what he does on a regular basis.
	Yeah, let's take a look at that, okay?
	So let's look from that same video on October 26, 2017. Can we play PVX 24B? In 2017, he has his minion get up there from the CIA, Anderson Cooper, and say it never happened.
	Alex Jones made it up, despite the fact we have the clip.
	That shows how weak they are.
	They know they're exposed.
	So just tell bigger lies.
	Talk about Hitler and the big lie theory.
	So that's why it's a revolutionary act.
	to financially support this broadcast.
	We've got specials that are ending in the next few days.
	50% off Brain Force, just the known, highest quality, healthy, organic compounds for healthy, more active, focused brain.
	20% now and more in each bottle.
	We're doing 50% off, not because it's not selling.
	We've sold so much of it.
	It's so popular that I ordered the biggest order ever of it, so I could do it 50% off to see if my free market idea would work, to sell even more at lower prices, make you even happier, and fund ourselves to expand a win-win.
	It's worked!
	I thought we had a two-month supply.
	It'll be sold out in a couple weeks at this rate, so I've got to end the special We're going to end in the next few days.
	Secret 12, 40% off, about to end.
	Survival Shield X2, 40% off, about to end.
	BioTruth Selenium for Mustard Seed, strong, strong formulation, 40% off.
	The new specials will continue for a week or more.
	Anthroplexer until they sell out, 50% off, that's the dry form of SuperMetal Vitality.
	And SuperMetal Vitality, 30% off.
	Highest quality, known, organic, high quality herbs, ladies and gentlemen, that have passed the strict, almost impossible California standards.
	Until we know someday what we've talked about, we know they're going to do.
	But the point is, ladies and gentlemen, it's all available at infowarslive.com, infowarsstore.com, or 888-253-3139.
	As everyone now knows, the globalists are trying to shut down free speech worldwide.
	See Infowars as the tip of the spear.
	George Soros groups are coming after us.
	They're suing us.
	They're lying about us.
	They're attacking us because they know we're not Nazi collaborators scumbags like they are.
	They know we're telling the truth, and they know politically we are kicking their asses.
	Now more than ever, spread links to articles and videos and information at newswars.com and infowars.com and support us financially getting high-quality products so we can stand against the billionaire globalists that think America is a bunch of slaves that they control.
	I'm Alex Jones, and we've proven we can resist these criminals as long as you support us.
	So please fund our operation at infowarsstore.com and spread the links.
	It's a revolutionary act against these scumbags.
	So InfoWars tells its audience that buying its products will help InfoWars fight back against the globalists who stayed sanitary.
	That's what they're telling him.
	That's not what he said.
	We know what we talk about when he says the globalists, right?
	That's the billionaires who control and stage and enslave America under Alex Jones.
	Right?
	Part of it?
	Part of it, right.
	And when Mr. Jones said earlier, the people who did Sandy Hook, he's talking about the This video.
	When Mr. Jones said, when he said the people who did Sandy Hook, he was talking about the globalists.
	You're talking about the ad at the end?
	I'm no Ms. Karpova, I'm talking about when we heard today Mr. Jones say the people who did Sandy Hook, he means the globalists.
	Well, I previously told you earlier today that I didn't specifically know who he was referring to.
	Okay.
	Now, we get to the end here.
	As the new year changes, when we come into 2018, you understand that this suit was filed.
	The suit was filed against InfoWars based on all of the events we're talking about and Owen Shorter's video, everything.
	You know that happened in 2018. Right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Ms. Karpova, by my count, we've now seen something like 20+ videos of your employer, Alex Jones, we've now seen something like 20+ videos of your employer, Alex Jones, denying Sandy Hook More importantly, denying the existence and death of her son, Jessie.
	That's correct?
	I agree with that.
	Okay.
	You are also aware of other videos where Mr. Jones tried to walk back These disgusting claims.
	Are you aware of those videos?
	Every time he's questioning Sandy Hook, he's also saying that he doesn't know what happened.
	In some videos he says that he now believes that children were killed.
	Right.
	And the reason he started late in this period, to try, if you need to stand up, stand up here.
	I think you previously ruled that post-suit videos weren't Coming in because they discussed the case.
	I have not made that ruling.
	What we said was if you wanted to bring in...
	Oh, that was something different.
	I don't remember that.
	Is it on the list?
	Is it...
	I think it was discussed at the pretrial conference.
	I'm sorry, what are we...
	I'm confused.
	Let's do this.
	Let's wait until we have a question, or an exhibit, And then you can object if you think you have an objection.
	In 2017 to 2018, even right before this suit was filed, Mr. Jones was trying to walk back some of these claims about San Diego, correct?
	Right?
	I don't know what you mean by walk back.
	It means he was trying to now say, as opposed to all those earlier videos that we saw where he said it was completely fake, totally synthetic.
	At first I thought they real killed her a bit, but I did deep research, and it didn't happen.
	He started to change his tune a little bit in late 2017 to 2018, didn't he?
	He tried to walk some of that back.
	I don't think so.
	I think he's always wavered.
	He always said that he didn't know exactly what happened, but he was trying to get to the truth.
	You'd think that some of the videos we saw today, he said he didn't know what happened.
	Yes.
	That's your testimony?
	Okay.
	I did say that.
	Now, the truth is, Ms. Karpova, the reason that he started to say some of these things and start to back off is because he was under threat of legal action, right?
	I don't know.
	And even after Mr. Jones walked it back, up until very, very recently, we saw an opening statement.
	He was still saying it was a synthetic, wasn't he?
	I believe throughout the years he was wavering on the subject, not knowing what the truth was and trying to get to it the best he could.
	What I'm asking you is in October of 2021, as we saw an opening statement, Mr. Jones kept on saying Sandy Hook is synthetic.
	Correct?
	He also says, in my opinion, he says that he doesn't know.
	Have you seen that video?
	You know what video I'm talking about?
	I... You weren't here for opening statement, right?
	I was.
	Oh, you were here for...
	Not for an entire opening statement.
	I came in late.
	Okay.
	So you saw that video in October 2021 then?
	Mm-hmm.
	Mr. Jones still saying it's sympathetic.
	He has his definition of what he means by that.
	Okay, so I have no more questions for you.
	All right, Mr. Reynold.
	So, we've been on the state for a long time.
	We've discussed a variety of different issues.
	And I think that it would be best if we established first some time periods.
	So can you tell the members of the jury when it was that you first began to work at InfoWars?
	Late 2015. So many of the videos and That we've watched and articles that we've looked at, they were produced and put out before you worked there.
	Objection lady?
	Sustained.
	Many of the videos that we, well let me ask you this, were you working at InfoWars or were you somewhere else in 2013 when some of the videos that we watched were produced?
	I was not at InfoWars.
	And in 2014, were you working at InfoWars or were you working somewhere else when those videos?
	Somewhere else.
	And in 2015, what month did you say that you began?
	October.
	So prior to October 2015, were you working at InfoWars or were you working somewhere else?
	I was working somewhere else.
	Okay.
	Now, what was your first job at InfoWars?
	I was hired as a sound engineer.
	And were you living in Texas or were you living somewhere else before that?
	I was living somewhere else.
	And what...
	how did you hear about the job at InfoWars?
	It was a long time, but I believe I... I overheard an ad.
	Alex was recruiting for more crew personnel.
	And he asked to send resumes with qualifications.
	And so you were an InfoWars listener at the time?
	I wouldn't say so, but I knew of Alex Jones.
	And did you watch his programming on occasion?
	On occasion, I would say.
	And what was your general impression of this programming at the time?
	Bombastic.
	A lot of information that I wasn't able to process.
	Because I had other jobs, other things to take care of.
	It's a three-hour, four-hour broadcast.
	It's just hard to keep up with everything that's the same.
	That was my general impression.
	Did you like the show?
	I didn't dislike it.
	Okay.
	Liked it enough to listen to it on occasion?
	Yes.
	So, when you started there, how long did it take before you moved into production?
	Well, as a sound engineer, I'm still considered part of production since I'm there doing the show.
	I'm educating the music bumpers in and out.
	I'm hearing out between the breaks.
	If I need to do something else, I would be available to do that.
	So I'm part in that atmosphere of production in the control room.
	And did you have a prior career in your education, do you have some experience in music and sound?
	Yes, I do.
	And can you tell us about that?
	Well, I grew up playing piano classically.
	I always had a passion for music.
	After I got out of the military, I was thinking, what should I do now?
	And I wanted to see, you know, I kind of talked to myself on what was it that I wanted to do, and I wanted to go back to my true passion, which is music, and figure out what I could do in that area.
	And I decided to become a music engineer.
	It was something at my alley.
	I really enjoyed it.
	So you got the job and you moved to Austin?
	Correct.
	And when you first started work, what was your impression of, well, can you describe for the juries what the Infowars studio is like?
	What does it look like?
	Cameras, screens, very well taken care of, clean.
	Lots of lights.
	A lot of things going on at one time every day.
	People running around.
	People trying to give Alex what he's asked for.
	So it's a busy environment, I would say.
	And how many hours a day is Infowars producing content?
	At least when you started graduating.
	I think you said October, is that correct?
	Yes.
	I would say around eight, nine hours.
	content per day.
	And how many days a week?
	A lot of weeks.
	Seven days a week.
	And now I'm going to ask you, in your role as corporate representative, Has that been consistent since before the events that led to this lawsuit in 2012 occurred?
	In other words, was Infowars back then also producing eight or nine hours of content per day?
	You mean before I started?
	Yeah, because I'm asking you in the corporate role that's been imposed upon you.
	Yes, that's been about the same.
	And so, and that's...
	So, if we were to think about that, well, let's back up.
	Alex Jones, how many hours per day is he on the air?
	At least four hours a day.
	How many days a week?
	On average, seven days a week.
	Okay.
	And so if we did some math, do you have an estimate of about how many hours he would be on the air in any given week?
	Some weeks it's busier than others because during very busy times like the election, the midterms, I mean he's on air 24/7 so it's just very hard to estimate but I would say it's a lot.
	So if we did, you know, four times, let's say six, that would be 24 hours a week?
	I would say so.
	Plus there's other coverage as well.
	Yes.
	Now, we've gone through The videos, or at least clips from the videos in this case.
	And do you recall the years that they span?
	The videos on the list, yes.
	Starting 2012 into 2017. And based upon your knowledge of how many hours per week Per year and about how many hours of video here.
	Is it fair to say that Alex Jones devoted more or less than one half of 1% of the total time of Infowars to coverage of Sandy Hook?
	In my opinion, less.
	Less than half of total or 1% of total error?
	If I had to ask me, yes.
	What are your job responsibilities now?
	Well, to make it easy, I would say, think of a general contractor.
	They're just responsible for making sure the people who are tasked with their job are doing their job.
	So I oversee that the production is Started off right, that everything is technically going correctly during the broadcast, that Alex needs everything he needs.
	If I need to delegate something to happen, I will do that.
	I will find the right person to complete that job.
	If something is required of me to do, I will do that as well.
	I coordinate guests.
	Do you prepare a script for Mr. Jones?
	Never.
	Absolutely not.
	Does anyone prepare a script for Mr. Jones?
	Absolutely not.
	Is there ever a script for any of his shows?
	No.
	Does anybody have really any idea what granularly is going to occur on the show?
	No, not ever.
	Would you describe that as part of the appeal of the Alex Jones show?
	Absolutely, I think that's why, and it was also part of my appeal that I tuned in the show on the rare occasions that I had before I started working there, and why I actually wanted to work there, because it seemed like just kind of a fun place where people aren't, their shoulders are being looked over, and they're allowed to be creative, to express their opinion.
	What was the question?
	Sorry.
	The question was whether it's part of the appeal of the show that it's unscripted.
	Yes, I believe so very much.
	That's why people tune into it because it's so much different than a lot of the established media out there that people are used to.
	Is the entire show devoted to mass casualty events and school shootings?
	No, absolutely not.
	Do you all cover UFOs?
	I don't remember.
	Last time we covered that, no.
	But has Alex covered UFOs?
	Maybe, occasionally.
	How about David Icke's lizard people idea?
	Alex makes fun of Dave for that.
	Can you tell us some of the, has he covered issues related to the effect of groundwater on the breeding habits of frogs?
	Did he do a segment that talked about how the plastics That were in water were affecting the breeding habits of frogs so that they would not reproduce.
	Yes, he's done segments on that and they've become memes, very popular on the internet, so he's gone back to it and, you know, shown studies from Berkeley, videos from professors from Berkeley University showing how the frogs have morphed their Original sex and became the opposite sex due to the chemicals in the water.
	And does he occasionally appear on his show in costume?
	Yes.
	And does he paint his face?
	Yes.
	And on occasion does he act like a wrestler on his show?
	Yes.
	And rip his shirt off?
	Yes.
	And do people find it a mutant?
	They do.
	Would you say that everybody who tunes into the Alex Jones show tunes in because, you know, they love everything he has to say?
	Objection of speculation.
	As part of your job as a production assistant, have you had occasion to get to know members of Alex Jones's have you had occasion to get to know members of Alex
	Yeah, we have people call in, make conversation with.
	A lot of people go to, if there's a rally or an event he goes to, his listeners go there And does everybody who call in agree with everything that Alex says?
	Rejection hearsay?
	From a production standpoint, Would you say that part of Alex's show is appealing to people who love to hate him?
	I think you could do a better job not leading a witness who works for your client.
	What would you say is, if you describe as a production person, the type of audience that's out there, What different types of segments of people are watching the show or listening to it?
	Well, I can tell you personally that part of my duties is to take calls, and I hear it all.
	A lot of people call in diehard Alex's fans.
	They want to contribute information.
	Alex can do nothing.
	You don't really object to the hearsay of what these people are saying?
	Without telling us what they said, can you just tell us generally what you understand from speaking to me?
	Correct.
	Some people love him, some people...
	Yeah, I mean...
	The answer is giving this hearsay.
	So, at some point you were asked to be a, well, Let me back up just one more.
	Would you describe Alec's show more as radio or as television?
	I'll take both.
	It's very television driven.
	You have to speak up a little bit.
	It's very television driven because we do produce imagery on screen and it's a lot more interactive for the audience.
	Our guests come on via video.
	But I would also think it's, I would also say that it's a radio show itself also, yes.
	How much of the content that's on Infowars or that Alex talks about, how much of that is self-produced original journalism and how much of it is just discussing things that are found on the internet or that are trending?
	The vast majority is the latter.
	And by the latter you mean?
	It's taken from other sources.
	Current breaking news, articles, videos.
	At some point you were asked to be the corporate representative for InfoWars?
	Yes.
	And when was that?
	About a year ago.
	And do you recall As part of that, being asked to review certain documents that had been turned over to the personal entry holders.
	Your question was okay?
	Do you recall being asked to review the documents produced in this case?
	Yes.
	What did you understand that to mean?
	I didn't exactly understand what it meant because the amount of documents is so vast.
	I was really pointed to specific documents to review.
	When you say the amount of documents was vast, give us a sense of scale, please.
	I think millions of emails.
	Do people email InfoWars, and I'm asking as a corporate representative, do people email InfoWars frequently?
	Every day.
	About how many emails does InfoWars receive on a given day?
	Thousands and thousands.
	And was that as true in 2012 as it is today?
	Yes.
	And how many people work at InfoWars?
	As an entire company.
	I believe between 50 and 80, just varies.
	And how many of those people are tasked with reading this volume of emails that are coming in?
	No one.
	Of the emails that were turned over, were most of them opened or unopened by InfoWresta?
	Most of them were unopened.
	You've been asked about a bunch of different documents earlier that had a label on the bottom.
	Do you know that to be what's called a Bates label?
	I'm not sure what that means.
	The series of digits on the bottom that Mr. Bankston described, do you remember that?
	Yes.
	Now, some of those If you look at the header, they do not have an InfoWars employee.
	Objection reading, and I would ask at this point for an instruction, so that Mr. Ringall knows what he is.
	Sustained.
	Mr. Ringall, you need to stop leading the witness.
	This is not an actual cross examination. This is a form of a cross. This is a form of a cross. This is a form of a cross. This is a form of a cross. This is
	a form of a cross. This is a form of a cross. This is a form of a cross. This is a form of a cross.
	Do you recall being asked about a plaintiff's exhibit 66?
	Yes.
	Yes, I have it ready here.
	General, I have a quickie show up so I can have to approach on.
	All right.
	Very quick.
	Okay.
	You've got to wait.
	Earlier, I asked you about how many emails have been produced.
	Do you recall that?
	Yes.
	Is it fair to say that rather than millions, it was hundreds of thousands?
	Yes.
	Now, I'm showing you this.
	Can you see?
	This number here?
	Yes.
	What does that number mean to you?
	I was told that means that it was in the corporate file.
	Do you know or can you say when InfoWars received?
	No.
	Ms. Doctrima?
	No.
	Do you think or can you say whether it was before or after 2017?
	It could have been after.
	could have been after.
	I don't know.
	And there were...
	Do you recall you were asked about plaintiff's exhibit 63?
	Yes.
	Thank you.
	Can you remind us what that is?
	That is a new email from Wolfgang Halliday to Scarlett.
	And do you see an InfoWars person anywhere on that email?
	No.
	Do you know how this email came into the possession?
	Of Info Wars?
	I do not.
	Do you recall around when Info Wars made its production?
	2018.
	Do you have an opinion as to when this came into the possession of info awards or how?
	I don't know.
	I don't want to speculate.
	I want to go back and talk about the time period between 2012 and 2013. The type of coverage that Infowars was Do
	you have your list of videos in front of you?
	Yes.
	I'm going to direct you to a video called Sandy Hook Second Shooter Cover-Up.
	It's December 19, 2012.
	How many days after the shooting is that?
	Five days?
	Okay.
	We're going to play the video.
	The whole would say.
	Okay.
	Defense Exhibit 4, Your Honor.
	Well, no defense exhibits have been admitted, so you're not playing that yet.
	Your Honor, we are...
	No, it has not been admitted.
	We had a conversation at pretrial.
	No one was prepared.
	So you need to move to admit it.
	You might have an agreement, but I don't know about it, and it's not on the record.
	The Feds moves to admit defense exhibit 4. Any objections?
	No, Your Honor, the plaintiffs have their exhibits, but we object to hearsay on this one.
	So do you object or not?
	Because you said no.
	Yes, no.
	For our videos, we're okay.
	His, they're hearsay.
	We can use them against the party for hearsay.
	This is an out-of-court statement of Alex Jones.
	But he can't use it against us.
	All right.
	Here's what we're going to do.
	You guys are going to get to go home 14 minutes early, and we're going to finish up this.
	So, all of my rules and restrictions still follow.
	Do not watch the news, don't go on social media, don't talk to anyone about anything that's happened here in this case.
	Miss Madison feel is gonna give you the information that I was gonna give you because I'm gonna be out here We'll see here at 8:45 so we can get started all right Thank you so much gallery
	I'm just at the door find you Thank you.
	All right, everyone can sit down.
	All right.
	Let's roll back first.
	You wanted to raise an objection about, I think, her...
	I don't know what it was.
	What was the objection?
	Um, my...
	Actually, can you allow me to consider that?
	Yes.
	Alright, so now we have a conversation.
	We should have had a pre-trial.
	You want to admit some of the videos.
	I'm waiting for the door to shut.
	And you want to object.
	So, right now we just have defense four.
	Okay.
	Okay?
	So here would be my objection.
	Alright.
	The first objection is that the video is hearsay.
	It's an out of court statement not being used against the party.
	It's Jones and I'm using it.
	My exote's coming.
	He can't just put on extra judicial statements as a client at length.
	He can't do that.
	My second objection is that you ordered us on March 10th to specifically identify any clips that we wanted to play from the What they're planning before and after.
	There's no clips.
	So now we just have this full video.
	When we got to pretrial, we made an agreement.
	And that agreement was.
	We don't have to discuss all these objections and all these things I'm talking to you about now.
	Because not only did he not provide me clips, but he made the agreement that day.
	And we made it again.
	That the only reason that defendants would be offering video evidence in this case is for optional completeance.
	As such, I have not had a chance to launch any of the objections, or in fact, even review the things on defendant's specific list, because the only reasons I would ever think they would come in is if I offered something with a misleading statement, and he identified for you a specific statement in an unplayed It can be played to make that fully understood.
	Now, without that, and now he's talking about adding in the substance of evidence, not only do I have the hearsay, but you violated your preshaw order.
	He's had my clips for months, and then I was under the impression we're only doing optional complaints.
	I almost certainly, if I need to go through these defense exhibits, I'm going to find loads of objectionable material, things that totally violate orders.
	I was never offered any opportunity to do that, and you just totally violated your preshaw order.
	I couldn't disagree more.
	I think that Attorney Bankston is being absolutely dishonest to the court.
	Let's just focus on the issue.
	Exhibit 31 is a summary of voluminous records that I agreed to because we agreed that they were all in evidence.
	That's what a summary of voluminous records Under the rules, it has to be in evidence to be a summary.
	And Mr. Bankson agreed to that.
	Beyond that, we have an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim here, which is based on the coverage that InfoWars gave to Sandy Hook during the period between 2012 and 2018. And this is the coverage that InfoWars gave to Sandy Hook during that period.
	So, it's absolutely important substantive evidence in the case that he already agreed to.
	It's also a business record of the company if you want me to go through that dance, but I don't think it's necessary, given Mr. Bankston's earlier agreement that this was all in, and its importance is substantive evidence in the case.
	Alright.
	It is not...
	The summary, what you're calling the summary, plaintiff's Exhibit 31, was told to me is an agreed list of videos.
	So that is a very vague sentence.
	It doesn't say it's a summary exhibit.
	Maybe that was your understanding.
	Maybe that was your agreement.
	I don't know.
	It's not how it was presented to me.
	That's number one.
	You have an intentional infliction of emotional distress verdict, not claim.
	It's already been decided.
	So you don't get to defend against intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	You only get to defend against damages.
	Your Honor, the videos themselves, plaintiffs have been playing them for a reason.
	Since the beginning of this case, I've been saying that during this period, We should just be focusing on the actual damages suffered by the plaintiffs.
	Instead, plaintiffs have chosen to play little clips from cherry-picked videos throughout this period.
	They agreed before that these would come in, and now I'm hearing for the first time that I can't put them in.
	They are relevant to showing the level of emotional distress that the jury can infer was caused by these These publications.
	If you didn't want to hear from me, Your Honor, if there was an agreement that I made, I think it would be put in front of you.
	I think there would be a Rule 11. I emailed Mr. Raynaud about these to say that that list of videos was just a green list of videos that were produced in this case.
	I've certainly never agreed to the admission of any defense exhibits, and we went through, you'll remember, we went through at Prinshot what was admitted.
	I'm very disturbed about the idea that they blatantly defied your order to designate what they were going to play.
	And that they have made the only agreement we haven't opened before, the only one, is that they will only offer evidence for optional rebates.
	I am fine with that.
	If they want to offer things in my case because they need to be to fully understand something, but I understand I'm fine with that.
	What I'm not fine with is now, Being told that now we're offering substantive evidence.
	That was never, that's what's in violation of being pregnant in local court.
	And so, not only do I think they are hearsay, and we can probably work and talk about that, because there's hearsay in hearsay.
	But the fact that they violated your free trial, the fact that I did everything you answered to, you told us.
	Show me what your substantive evidence is going to be.
	And I didn't get that.
	That's real disturbing to me, that they've had all my evidence in a month.
	Is this video one of the ones that you played part of today?
	No.
	It's not?
	No.
	And Your Honor, I'm hearing a lot about video clips.
	It's a nine minute video.
	I'm going to play the whole thing.
	And beyond that, there is Well, here's why I asked you to exchange your exhibits before trial and be prepared at pretrial to go through the list.
	And what I remember is that when I said, okay, let's go through the plaintiff's exhibits, we did that, and then I said, let's go through these, do you have them?
	And you didn't have them here.
	I didn't have a list from you at that time.
	You weren't ready to go through them.
	So the problem I have is, if we have a hearsay objection to defensively before, I have to look at it to make that decision.
	I can't do it in a vacuum.
	Where you tell me what you think it says.
	No.
	I have to look at it.
	So now I need the two of you to go through these exhibits and tell me where the hearsay is so that I can look at it before we bring the jury back.
	You know what's challenging to me, Your Honor, is that because I was given the agreement that the video...
	Are you giving me new information or are you just...
	No, I can't identify for you in this exhibit or in 30 hours of the total videos.
	I can't identify the hearsay.
	I would have, absolutely, if he had not made the agreement that we're only going to plan for us.
	I would have done my work pre-trial.
	You know I would have.
	And I can't right now sit in here before we bring that jury back in or even by tomorrow morning just starting to get up through all the videos.
	Because I would have done that had you not agreed in open court I'm only playing them for optional.
	I never said that.
	Beyond that...
	I mean, you did use the words optional completeness many, many times in pre-trial.
	Because I wanted to play them at the time, Your Honor, instead of having to wait until it was my turn.
	But now it's my turn.
	And the fact is, we didn't review their videos either.
	When we were talking about who had their exhibits, we were talking about paper exhibits.
	No, we discussed the video exhibits as well, and you agreed to them.
	I agreed to them based on their representations, and we didn't review them.
	But that's your choice.
	But I'm saying, when your honor says I didn't bring them, I had the video exhibits.
	It was the paper exhibits that we were talking about.
	You're going to have to go through the videos that you want to admit and find out if there are any that can be admitted by agreement.
	If there are some, I'll just give you some guidance.
	If there are some that mention Sandy Hook, they're going to be admitted.
	If there are parts of videos If there are parts of videos from plaintiff's exhibit, video exhibit 1,
	8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 31, or 30, That you think are needed to show the context of the part we've already seen, then you need to prepare that.
	And the way you do that is you prepare the clip so it shows it, including the part Mr. Bankston shows.
	That's how you do optional completeness.
	You do the whole thing together.
	So you're going to have to get that ready.
	I understand your...
	The videos I want to play are on Mr. Bankston's list.
	But did he admit them?
	But they're the Sandy Hook videos.
	They don't discuss other things.
	This list, which list?
	Exhibit 31. Okay, this is just a list of video names.
	That were agreed to be the videos that discussed.
	They're not even all admitted.
	That's what we're talking about now.
	Right, and I'm giving you some guidance on how to get them admitted.
	We offer them as the business records.
	Corporate representative on the stand.
	So then you'll have to question her about them.
	And since all we heard from her today is that she doesn't know where to find the videos, she's never seen the videos, she doesn't think they keep the videos, they all got deplatformed, you're going to have a hard time with that.
	Alright, anything else before we leave for the day?
	I just wanted to make sure to clarify what I I can bring up one quick issue.
	I suppose.
	Sorry to do it now.
	I want to be clear.
	All four of us are very proud of what we do.
	I'm a little tired of the personal injury orders and stuff.
	It's a direct violation of the Texas Disciplinary rules.
	I think it should stop.
	I haven't heard it since opening.
	Is there been more?
	It's just twice today.
	No.
	Stopped it.
	Is there anything else?
	I mean, that crosses very close to the line of the personal attack against another counsel, which you know we don't do in our courts, right?
	Certainly not.
	You agree with me or you don't agree with me?
	I agree.
	They are personal injury lawyers, but I won't call them.
	Well, I mean, just...
	And they're dishonest.
	I stood there with him and he agreed to these videos.
	When and was it on the record?
	It was not on the record.
	I took him at his word as a Texas lawyer.
	So I can't...
	Do we need to...
	Ms. Ward and Ms. Mattisickfield, if you can tell the jury to not come in at 9 tomorrow, we'll clearly have more things to work out with just the attorneys.
	I don't know if they've already left.
	I don't have to call them or someone.
	I think I need both of you to spend the evening figuring out where you agree, where you don't agree, what you think you had an agreement where you don't agree, what you think you had an agreement on, both of you, what you think you had an agreement on, and re-reading the standing order
	and re-reading the standing order in limiting in Travis County District Court cases, and re-reading the Texas Code of Disciplinary, or whatever it's called, the Conduct Code, because if you're going to call other the Conduct Code, because if you're going to call other attorneys in my courtroom dishonest, you're going to have to back that up.
	For now, I'm going to assume this has been a rough day, and everyone's emotions are high, and you're never going to do it again?
	and we're going to move on.
	But I want everyone to do those three things tonight in addition To what I asked you to do with the exhibits, you need to tell them which exhibits you're going to try to get introduced through this witness so that they can take a look at them tonight, and we will meet in the morning at 9 and go over all the exhibits before we bring the jury.
	All right?
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Then, that's it for today.
	We're off the record.
	7 hours and 31 minutes, Mr. Fainston.

▲